Good guy with an AK47 ...

[laughing dog]

In the words of the master, "You are ignorant, and ignorant of your ignorance, and your belief that you are knowledgeable is absurd and makes you look a fool." Your claims about what's going on in Derec's brain are utterly unsupported by his posts. Read for content, not just for blasphemies against your ideology.

Are you trying to be ironic?

Are you trying to prove you're just as disinclined to read for content as bilby is?...

It is rude to answer a question with a question. I asked you a yes or no question. Instead, more unintended (?) irony.

 

[Bomb#20]

Are you trying to be ironic?

Are you trying to prove you're just as disinclined to read for content as bilby is?...

It is rude to answer a question with a question. I asked you a yes or no question. Instead, more unintended (?) irony.

You asked me a rude yes or no question. If you feel butthurt at reciprocal rudeness, go blubber about the unfairness of it all to a person you haven't been rude to. If you can find one.

And no, I was not being ironic. If you think you can produce Derec quotes that back up bilby's accusations, knock yourself out.

 

[laughing dog]

You asked me a rude yes or no question.

No, I did not. Get over it.

If you feel butthurt at reciprocal rudeness, go blubber about the unfairness of it all to a person you haven't been rude to. If you can find one.

More irony. Rudeness does bother me – I am quite used to yours. Just like I am used to these childish and boring tantrums of yours. I was simply pointing out to you that you were being rude – something you routinely take others to task for.

And no, I was not being ironic.

I asked if you were intentionally ironic. The irony is there. So, unintended irony it is.

If you think you can produce Derec quotes that back up bilby's accusations, knock yourself out.

What accusations are you bellyaching about?

 

[bilby]

Stop & frisk is horrendously unconstitutional.

If you frisk everybody you stop then I would agree. But the S&F programs also have the intermediate step of questioning, to establish probable cause.

Police shouldn't be stopping people without already having probable cause. They can come and ask otherwise, but it's only a request, not a demand. (For example, the cop a few years back who correctly concluded that I had hiked a particular trail and he was interested in whether the snow was completely melted. Quite relevant information for someone working with the search and rescue team.)

So you feel he was justified in cuffing you and searching your pockets for loose snow?

 

[Derec]

I am saying you are foolish to make confident claims about such cases, because you cannot possibly have the necessary information for confidence.

Then we really should not be discussing anything, as there could be "unknown unknowns" in any issue.
Do you have any reason in this case specifically why you think new reporting might be incomplete in some major facet of the case? Or are you just being a contrarian for the sake of being contrarian?

You are ignorant, and ignorant of your ignorance, and your belief that you are knowledgeable is absurd and makes you look a fool.

More knowledgeable than you. Your pseudointellectual BS is making you look like a fool. If you took half of what you are spewing here seriously, you would not be in this discussion forum to begin with.

Of course you are at liberty to do so, but appearing foolish is something many people try to avoid, and I strongly recommend avoiding it to you as a life strategy.

Ditto.

 

[Derec]

If you want to buy a gun to look tough, you are nowhere near responsible enough to own one. And yes it is that fucking simple.

Bans on guns should not be based on whether you like how they look. Or how their owners look with them.

Spare me, just fucking spare with this "muh 2nd amendment rights" horseshit. Say with a straight face, "I believe convicted felons should be allowed to own guns. I also believe people who commit domestic violence should own guns. People with compromising mental health issues should be able to own a gun. 'Shall not be infringed' motherfuckers!"

Constitutional rights can be restricted based on the things you mention. They cannot be restricted based on arbitrary things like that you don't like how certain guns look.

I have pretty much adopted a zero tolerance for bullshit 2nd amendment arguments which always, always, FUCKING ALWAYS boil down to arbitrary inconsistencies.

If you want to be challenge the executive order on the Saiga, which I agree is arbitrary and capricious, you may sue. That's what courts are for.

It makes sense to ban the gun morons want. Fuck the constitution. Or more accurately your interpretation of it.

It is not my interpretation that is the issue here. It is that of the Supreme Court. I do not think the present SCOTUS would be amenable to Patooka's "don't like the looks of it" legal argument.

 

[Derec]

The police need probable cause to stop and question someone. You're bass akwards.

I am not a lawyer, but there has been a 8-1 SCOTUS decision ( Terry v. Ohio) that ruled that S&F was constitutional based on certain requirements. So it is wrong to say that a S&F policy is automatically unconstitutional.

 

[Derec]

I feel that empowering every citizen of 18 or more years of age to kill or main tens or hundreds of fellow citizens in seconds or a few minutes, is sheer folly.

That can be done with handguns too. Good luck banning those under 2nd Amendment though.
Since amending the Constitution is very difficult, your bets bet would be to have enough anti-gun presidents elected to appoint enough anti-gun SCOTUS justices to do what the Right did with abortion.

 

[Derec]

Those are excellent points. Makes for a pretty good argument for banning semi-auto weapons altogether.

Not doable, at least not for the foreseeable future, and so moot.
I think laws targeting people, not models of guns, is the right approach.
For example, no gun sale until the background check clears would be a good closing of a loophole.

 

[Derec]

Police shouldn't be stopping people without already having probable cause.

SCOTUS already ruled in the 60s that S&F is constitutional if certain rules are followed.

 

[ZiprHead]

The police need probable cause to stop and question someone. You're bass akwards.

I am not a lawyer, but there has been a 8-1 SCOTUS decision ( Terry v. Ohio) that ruled that S&F was constitutional based on certain requirements. So it is wrong to say that a S&F policy is automatically unconstitutional.

Yes, the Terry Stop is well known.

A Terry stop in the United States allows the police to briefly detain a person based on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity. Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause which is needed for arrest.

There is concern that Terry stops do not account for possible implicit bias of officers, and possibly results in racially skewed decisions.[6] High police surveillance in impoverished communities often results in increased rates of arrests and punitive policing, causing an increase in mass incarceration, even in periods of time when crime rates are decreasing.[7]

 

[atrib]

The police need probable cause to stop and question someone. You're bass akwards.

I am not a lawyer, but there has been a 8-1 SCOTUS decision ( Terry v. Ohio) that ruled that S&F was constitutional based on certain requirements. So it is wrong to say that a S&F policy is automatically unconstitutional.

Indeed. SCOTUS ruled that temporary detentions that are minimally intrusive and extend in time only to allow the officer to investigate a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the detainee has committed a crime, is committing a crime, or is about to commit a crime, does not violate the 4th Amendment ban on unreasonable searches and seizures. However, Terry does not:

1. Override the 5th Amendment protections against self incrimination (the police cannot force a suspect to answer questions)
2. Override the 4th Amendment protections against warrantless searches, i.e. while a superficial "patdown" of the suspect to check for weapons is allowed for officer safety, the officer does NOT have the right to search the person or his belongings based merely on reasonable suspicion.
3. Often comes in direct conflict with state laws that allow citizens with, and sometimes without a concealed carry permit to legally carry a concealed firearm on their person, without any obligation to divulge this information to law enforcement, or in some states, only when directly asked about concealed firearms.

Terry v. Ohio is probably the most poorly understood (and most abused) ruling amongst law enforcement officers, considering how many of them routinely and habitually violate the rights of people under the apparent guise of that ruling. As to reasonable articulable suspicion, that is a joke in practice. And there is very little accountability for such police misbehavior.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Those are excellent points. Makes for a pretty good argument for banning semi-auto weapons altogether.

Not doable, at least not for the foreseeable future, and so moot.
I think laws targeting people, not models of guns, is the right approach.
For example, no gun sale until the background check clears would be a good closing of a loophole.

No. There's a very good reason for that timer and a lot more laws should have such timers.

We do have an example of what happens with gun laws with no timer: NFA items. (Machine guns, suppressors, guns over .50 cal etc.) Local law enforcement can de-facto ban them by simply trashcanning background checks for them.

The timer prevents such de-facto bans and it makes the government get it's act together. Yes, some cases will slip through but that provides an incentive to fix the system and prevents the government from pulling a slow-roll. (I recently ran into a question on StackOverflow--someone trying to verify the wait for a K-1 visa is more than 2 years at present. Note that this is purely bureaucrat time, there's no waiting list on K-1 visas.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The police need probable cause to stop and question someone. You're bass akwards.

I am not a lawyer, but there has been a 8-1 SCOTUS decision ( Terry v. Ohio) that ruled that S&F was constitutional based on certain requirements. So it is wrong to say that a S&F policy is automatically unconstitutional.

Yes, the Terry Stop is well known.

A Terry stop in the United States allows the police to briefly detain a person based on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity. Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause which is needed for arrest.

There is concern that Terry stops do not account for possible implicit bias of officers, and possibly results in racially skewed decisions.[6] High police surveillance in impoverished communities often results in increased rates of arrests and punitive policing, causing an increase in mass incarceration, even in periods of time when crime rates are decreasing.[7]

Stop and Frisk had nothing to do with reasonable suspicion, it was just about people who didn't look local.

 

[Derec]

Stop and Frisk had nothing to do with reasonable suspicion, it was just about people who didn't look local.

Do you have any evidence for that? Especially "not local"? How many people were stopped in or close to their own neighborhoods vs. far from them?
Also, SCOTUS has not ruled NYC stop and frisk to be unconstitutional. I know a district judge has, but afaik she based her decision mostly (or solely) on the doctrine of "disparate impact" as opposed to on any actual lack of reasonable suspicion or other elements of a Terry stop.

 

[Derec]

No. There's a very good reason for that timer and a lot more laws should have such timers.

We do have an example of what happens with gun laws with no timer: NFA items. (Machine guns, suppressors, guns over .50 cal etc.) Local law enforcement can de-facto ban them by simply trashcanning background checks for them.

You make a good point. Maybe the time should be extended then.

someone trying to verify the wait for a K-1 visa is more than 2 years at present. Note that this is purely bureaucrat time, there's no waiting list on K-1 visas.)

There should be a lot more scrutiny on the K1 process as there are many K1 scammers out there.

 

[ZiprHead]

The police need probable cause to stop and question someone. You're bass akwards.

I am not a lawyer, but there has been a 8-1 SCOTUS decision ( Terry v. Ohio) that ruled that S&F was constitutional based on certain requirements. So it is wrong to say that a S&F policy is automatically unconstitutional.

Yes, the Terry Stop is well known.

A Terry stop in the United States allows the police to briefly detain a person based on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity. Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause which is needed for arrest.

There is concern that Terry stops do not account for possible implicit bias of officers, and possibly results in racially skewed decisions.[6] High police surveillance in impoverished communities often results in increased rates of arrests and punitive policing, causing an increase in mass incarceration, even in periods of time when crime rates are decreasing.[7]

Stop and Frisk had nothing to do with reasonable suspicion, it was just about people who didn't look local white.

FTFY

Stop-and-Frisk Data

Annual Stop-and-Frisk Numbers:An analysis by the NYCLU revealed that innocent New Yorkers have been subjected to police stops and street interrogations more than 5 million times since 2002, and that Black and Latinx communities continue to be the overwhelming target of these tactics. At the...

www.nyclu.org

 

[Gun Nut]

[*]88% of burglars may be robbing to support their drug habit.

"May be". What a meaningless number then.
88% of all statistics may be made up on the spot. Then again, they may not be.

This quote was misattributed to me... I never said or referenced that.
That said... It is well known that 62.8% of all statistics are completely made up.

 

[ZiprHead]

That said... It is well known that 62.873% of all statistics are completely made up.

Get it right next time.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No. There's a very good reason for that timer and a lot more laws should have such timers.

We do have an example of what happens with gun laws with no timer: NFA items. (Machine guns, suppressors, guns over .50 cal etc.) Local law enforcement can de-facto ban them by simply trashcanning background checks for them.

You make a good point. Maybe the time should be extended then.

The 72 hours we do currently is fine--it's normally all by computer anyway. There's no need to extend it just because a few places can't find their ass.

someone trying to verify the wait for a K-1 visa is more than 2 years at present. Note that this is purely bureaucrat time, there's no waiting list on K-1 visas.)

There should be a lot more scrutiny on the K1 process as there are many K1 scammers out there.

No--this is simply the backlog, not any checking.