Dad who pluggedprowler spurns deal

New York Daily News ^ | 4/08/03 | NANCIE L. KATZ

[SgtofMarines]

Heey... fugettaboudit...

[hellinahandcart]

whatwhatWHAT??? Admin "zotted" my b*tch?

LOL.

I haven't seen a lightning bolt or a Viking kitten since the war started. I miss them.

[Maelstrom]

Don't try it.

[Dead Corpse]

The Feds, I'm sure, are a consideration in that. There are laws against making threats over the internet now. ISP's and site owners are being held accountable for content in quite a few cases.

[stuartcr]

As for your rights, I don't believe they had either aircraft or airborne terrorists when the 2nd amendment was drawn-up. There is nothing wrong with carrying in public, that is why we have permits. Crowded public transportation, 30k ft above the ground, is something completely different. If you can get aboard an aircraft with a gun, so can the bad guys. If you are as big as you say you are, then I wouldn't think you would need a gun, if the bad guy didn't have one either. Let the pilots carry.

[Atlas Sneezed]

"Here in Oregon I can keep whatever type of gun I like in my house and don't have to go begging politicians for permission."

Unless you like guns that shoot more than one bullet with a trigger pull, or have unusually large calibers, or have barrels or overall lengths less than a certian arbitrary number, or have facilities to reduce the ear-damaging blast. Then, you need to hope you live in a county where the sheriff approves of your preferences. (And jump through lots of hoops, wait for many months, and pay a significant tax.)

[Critter]

In the end, I believe he was even coming around a bit. Too bad they zapped him.

[algol]

Valid points. No argument here.

[Atlas Sneezed]

"Does he have a right to NOT be on an airplane with a guy he doesn't know, that has a gun?"

He has a right to fly on any private airline that happens to have voluntarily adopted a policy forbidding guns.

His irrational fears are not justification for the government to deny the freedom of airlines to establish their own policies.

[SgtofMarines]

I don't think we just go around giving the federal government permission to run amok over everything that wasn't available in the 18th century. And air travel shouldn't be public transportation. It should be private transportation arranged through private carriers.

[Dead Corpse]

As big as people like me are, is why smaller people like you need firearms. Without them, the Law of the Jungle takes over and you are subject to the whims of the strongest warlord with the biggest sword. Let's not go there again shall we?

As has been stated, the Feds have no authority to control the airlines for exactly the reason you mention, ie; no airplanes in 1792. For this we have an amendment process. As they are used predominantly in interstate travel and commerce, a federal amendment would be the right way to go there. Think about why this has NOT been done.

As has also been mentioned, what bad guy is going to be able to draw his gun on an airplane when every fifth-or sixth person onboard is also packing? I don't care how good a shot he is, the numbers would be against him. That, and how is he to know who are the ones carrying?

As for carry permits. I don't have one. I won't subject my Rights to government permission. Permits are about government control, completely against the Constitution.

[SgtofMarines]

Amen! Well-put.

[demosthenes the elder]

I was a little irked when the vikingkitten site changed the tune from immigrant song to some idiotic tune the name of which escapes me... I haven't gone back there since. I wonder if they have changed it again? hrmn... bbiam...

[tpaine]

At what point does one do more than passively resist the Nanny State? What is the "tipping point?"
342 -sauropod-



I'm afraid that is a question that each man must answer for himself. It's a darn good one, too. My own personal take on most state "nanny" laws is that I disagree with them in principle, but I generally abide by them because I can find no Constitutional prohibition on states enacting such laws.
347 -sgt-


The 'prohibition' on states enacting unreasonable laws/regulations is in the 14th, - where it specifies "due process". -- This is from a USSC decision:

In its discussion of the scope of "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment the Court stated:
Neither the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of the States at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment marks the outer limits of the substantive sphere of liberty which the Fourteenth Amendment protects. See U.S. Const., Amend. 9. As the second Justice Harlan recognized:
     "[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property;
the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on.  It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment."
Poe v. Ullman, supra, 367 U.S. at 543, 81 S.Ct., at 1777
_________________________________

Thus, we see that the 'tipping point' must come when we are subject to "substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints".
-- Our 'dad who plugged the prowler' is real close to being tipped, in my book.

[Rytwyng]

RS -- Here's a case for jury nullification if there ever was one.

[sauropod]

Me too.

[SgtofMarines]

I think the underlying question is: What defines a "substantial arbitrary imposition" or "purposeless restraint"?

[babaloo999]

I thought he was just being devil's advocate and trying to play the smug a**hole role. He was doing quite well at that.
Go to the RIAA-music download threads and there will be one or two of the same type defending the record companies against pure and simple 'theft' by downloading music.
They all do have a legitimate point, the law is the law and there are more than enough JBT's to enforce seemingly bad laws because they know that generally law abiding people will just keep quiet and do what they're told.