Giving photogs a bad name?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, May 18, 2014.

  1. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    Florida has the Florida Mental Health Act of 1971, commonly known as
    the Baker Act, that allows involuntary confinement for mental health
    screening. A person can be held up to 72 hours if suspected to have a
    mental illness that would result in a danger to that person or others.

    So far, Marion Hammer has not been taken into custody by way of the
    Baker Act although she presents a clear and present danger to
    Tony Cooper, May 29, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    Most States have a similar act. That's where I got the language from
    PeterN, May 29, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    I don't see any evidence in either of those articles that the NRA
    actually "supported" anything. There are vague assertions and one
    statement that the NRA supported banning mail-order sales.
    J. Clarke, May 30, 2014
  4. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    Just a note, but the wording of the current Federal law is "(4) has been
    adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental
    institution". There is (or was--it may have been fixed) a known problem
    with the "system" in that there is no reporting of such commitments or
    adjudications to the national database used to confirm eligibility for
    firearms purchase.
    J. Clarke, May 30, 2014
  5. RichA

    -hh Guest

    I've not heard it before either, so I took a quick look.

    I only found the usual fringe lunatic claims; nothing from
    any source that I'd consider credible, let alone objectively

    Anyone else find anything tangibly real to support this allegation?

    -hh, May 30, 2014
  6. RichA

    PAS Guest

    If you leave your car in the street and someone steals it and then runs down
    a pedestrian, you should be prosecuted for criminal negligence. MY handgun
    is locked in a safe and in a locked home. Someone can still break into my
    home and break into my safe and steal my handgun if they want to. I should
    be prosecuted if this happens?
    PAS, May 30, 2014
  7. RichA

    PAS Guest

    To clarify what you posted, the accounts of businesses who have their
    accounts terminated are "the usual fringe lunatic claims"? Just checking.
    PAS, May 30, 2014
  8. RichA

    PAS Guest

    Our rights to own guns is not predicated on our proving a need to have one.
    You seem to be equating racism with our Constitutional right to own guns.
    There is no connection.
    It is not just a part of our culture, it is a Constitutional right, just as
    freedom of speech and religion is.
    Now you seem to equate so-called "homophobia" with the right to own guns.
    This is not a difficult concept. We have a constitutional right to own
    firearms, jst as we do to exercise free speech. Being a racist or not
    agreeing with a certain lifestyle is has no connection to this.
    Again, there is no requirement to provide a need in order to exercise our
    Don't ignore the fact that there are many crimes that are thwarted by gun
    onwers. Those incidents don't garner much publicity.
    PAS, May 30, 2014
  9. RichA

    PAS Guest

    Google is your friend, you'll find as much info as you need. I have the
    sneaking suspicion that it won't matter to you anyway in light of what you
    PAS, May 30, 2014
  10. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    Are you not aware that a criminal prosecution only takes place when
    the DA files? And, that a criminal prosecution results in a trial if
    the charged person requests?

    In other words, for the terminally thick, the ability to prosecute
    does not mean that prosecution will result if the situation is clearly
    not one that should be prosecuted. And, even if a prosecution action
    is pursued, a trial can clear the person.

    It's very noticeable that the "defense" of very logical proposals is
    usually a totally illogical proposed scenario like you have proposed
    and the one about gun pieces stored all around the house.

    What I am advocating is the prosecution of negligence. If there isn't
    negligence, there's no prosecution.

    As for the ridiculous auto theft example, the same holds true. You
    *are* responsible for a vehicle registered in your name. If you left
    the keys in your car and the car unlocked, you would be guilty of
    negligence and can be charged for that. If you were not negligent,
    you wouldn't be charged.

    Where is your defense of the negligent gun owner who leaves his loaded
    weapon in the nightstand and his child finds the gun and shoots his
    brother? Can you provide a defense without making up some totally
    improbable scenario?

    Negligence is a basis for prosecution. It is not being pursued in the
    case of careless gun owners because the NRA has a strangle hold on
    anything to do with guns. A DA who pursues a case of gun owner
    negligence will hunted down and pilloried by the NRA. That's wrong.
    Tony Cooper, May 30, 2014
  11. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    It's a right that is debatable based on the interpretation of the
    wording of the Amendment. Where is the "organized militia"?
    This is an old canard touted by the gun nuts. The number of crimes
    thwarted by gun owners is about equal to the number of crimes thwarted
    by someone yelling "Stop! Thief!".

    If such an incident occurs, it will be publicized. Newspapers and
    other news outlets *want* to publicize things like this. It's the
    kind of thing that brings in readers/viewers.

    Gun people will claim that the "liberal" news media suppress these
    stories. Bullshit. The news media doesn't suppress anything that
    brings in an audience.
    Tony Cooper, May 30, 2014
  12. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    Them maybe that's the problem or the cause.

    I wasn't saying there was a connection as such. But there were times when you could tale slaves beat them and have sex with them but in todays world most people don't see things that way. I don;t see why you think there needsto be a connection between them.
    What has happened is that the majority of americans don;t feel teh need to have a slave or two but at some point you must have has some right to own aslave even if that right was only to not outlaw owning a slave.

    And what exactly does a Constitutional right mean to you then, was it delivered by God like the 10 commandments ?, Rights have been given to many people over the centuries it doesn't mean those rights have to remain forever..
    I assume it's also your Constitutional right to close your eyes and walk where you wish, but I'd say that conflicts with crossing the road because doing so is dangerous and stupid even though you have the right to cross the road with your eyes closed.

    No I'm trying to explain how society changes and adapts with time.

    In the UK (as with other countries) we used to refuse to allow women to vote.
    So you may now say I'm comparing gun control with voting.

    We in the UK used to insist that in the early days of driving a person had to walk in front of your car to protect pedestrais, but things have evolvednow we require that the cars themselves are safety mantained and that driver knows how to drive.

    yes and other contires have their versions of what rights they have too.

    It used to be your right to be a racist and beat people you 'owned' you could even rape your wife without being prosecuted are you telling me these revisions in the law were bad ?
    In some countriesd they have the 'right' to beat a pregnant women to death because she refused to marry the person chosen for her.

    Then that's the problem isn't it. When given a right it can't be revoked for any reasons sensible or not.

    What did the 'constition' say about treating black people 50+ years ago ?
    You see in a progressive society thi9ngs can change for the betetr but if we stick to old laws, rules, beliefs and constitions wirtten years ago things won't improve for anyone.

    Perhaps because they rarely happen in the way you imagine them.
    Whisky-dave, May 30, 2014
  13. RichA

    PAS Guest

    An old and tired argument touted by the anti-gun nuts. I suggest a little
    research into who the founding fathers, particularly George Mason who is the
    main author of the 2nd Amendment, felt was the "militia". Mason said "I
    ask, sir, what is the milita? It is the whole people, except for a few
    public officials."
    Believe what you will.
    PAS, May 30, 2014
  14. RichA

    -hh Guest

    Oh, how unfortunate: instead of being as civil and providing
    substantiation of his claim, "PAS" attempts to dodge with a
    weak hand-waive. No authoritative, credible citations which
    substantiates his claim have been demonstrated to exist.

    Oh, how unfortunate: a lame Ad Hominem attack, which
    is a logical fallacy and damages whatever remaining
    credibility that PAS might have had after his first dodge.

    -hh, May 30, 2014
  15. RichA

    PAS Guest

    No, that's not the problem. Must you justify a need to the government to
    exercise every right you have?

    It appears that your are trying to equate them. A change in culture over
    time does not alter our Constitutional rights. Our rights are not subject
    to culture, public opinion, etc. There is a specific process that has to
    occur in order to amend the Constitution.
    It's fairly evident what a Constitutional right is. No one has said they
    are cast in stone forever. But they are not subject to public opinion or
    the whims of any politician. There is a specific process in place in order
    to amend the Constitution. Until it is amended, the righte enumerated in it
    are final.
    But that is not analagous to our Constitution.
    And this fits into the discussion about the US Constitution in what way?
    Anyone still has the "right" to be a racist. There is no law against that.
    Slavery was abolished, the Constitution was amended and, as I have said,
    there is a process for that. Until the 2nd Amendment is changed, the
    anti-gun nuts will have to accept the fact that we have the right to "keep
    and bear arms".
    Perhaps not. If confronted by a violent criminal, perhaps you are happy to
    be unarmed. I am not.
    PAS, May 30, 2014
  16. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    And that the general public today qualifies as an organized militia is
    an equally old and tired argument.
    I don't contest that. But, Mason was speaking of the society that he
    was a contemporary of in the late 1700s. He would probably be
    surprised today to see women voting and not to be able to buy a slave
    if he so chose. He might have approved the prohibition of alcohol
    sales in 1920, and the repeal of that amendment by the 21st Amendment
    in 1933.
    Tony Cooper, May 30, 2014
  17. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    This, stated in a number of similar ways, is a very common statement
    by the pro-gun group. It seems to display a blood lust by a person
    who hopes to be confronted and provided with a chance to blow someone
    away. Kinda the Clint Eastwood effect.

    One wonders, though, what the actual reaction would be. Talk's cheap.
    Tony Cooper, May 30, 2014
  18. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/30/2014 9:40 AM, PAS wrote:
    Absolutely correct. Neither is an absolute right. There are limits to
    both. Would you be in favor to quote: "...Nobody has a right to yell
    fire in a crowded movie theater...."
    See above.
    PeterN, May 30, 2014
  19. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    Federalist papers, antifederalist papers, constitutional convention
    J. Clarke, May 31, 2014
  20. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    Tony, that ship sailed on June 26, 2008, on which date the United States
    Supreme Court ruled that "The Second Amendment protects an individual
    right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to
    use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense
    within the home."

    Arguing alternative interpretations was fine before there was a Supreme
    Court ruling in the matter, but there has been one and there is no
    longer any doubt which interpretation is the law of the land.
    J. Clarke, May 31, 2014
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.