-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Lose LTC Quickly...update post 112
- Thread starter yanici
- Start date
- Status
I will accept your usage of "generations" as ambiguous in the context you used. Thanks for clarifying.
The 5 guys: Not sure if you read the entire article, it was a terrible example meant to prove a point. I was pointing out just how terrible of an example it was.
Dorchester: I will not call you clueless and dismiss you. Evidently you are not familiar with Dorchester. There are definitely "slimeballs" that steal cars in Dorchester, they also perform drive by shootings, muggings and any manner of criminal activity you can imagine. It is not known as one of the "garden" spots of the Boston Metropolitan area.
Making bullets fall on your head is a criminal act, whether there is a law against shooting in the air or not.
Read this: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux7.html
Its really good.
Last edited:
Right!
Do whatever the hell you want, but my liberty ends at your nose.
This is the basis of individual rights. everything else is just details.
That's why the 'law,' shooting a gun in the air is a fraud, but hurting someone with your bullet is not.
Malum prohibitum vs malum in se.
Last edited:
You are not getting it. The bullets are falling out of the sky, they may land on my property, your property. The person who shoots them in the air has no friggn clue. But when they do so, they ARE infringing on OUR rights to walk safely into OUR yards without the possibility of getting hit in the head with HIS bullets. HE is violating our liberties by his actions.
![[popcorn]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/043.gif "Popcorn [popcorn]")
It's becoming crystalline that he has no concept whatsoever...To TR, Liberty means: Anything that the law provides that keeps me safe and warmy...
What is crystalline is that you think you should be able to fire bullets into the air, and that if someone is struck, then they have to figure out who did it, and too bad so sad if they can't. BS.
- - - Updated - - -
Welll, the track got a bit crooked somewhere aways backs, are you surprised? And no, I did not start the bullets flying through the air. It wasn't me. Terminator maybe did it.
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
I can shoot my gun in the air all day long without a single projectile leaving my property, yet it is still illegal for me to do so.
In my action of firing into the air, I would not be violating the liberties nor property of any other, yet I can still be charged with a crime. This is what is known as "malum prohibitum."
I can shoot my gun in the air all day long without a single projectile leaving my property, yet it is still illegal for me to do so.
In my action of firing into the air, I would not be violating the liberties nor property of any other, yet I can still be charged with a crime. This is what is known as "malum prohibitum."
And would you know if someone had wandered onto your property?
I'd like to try and inject a neutral point of view into this discussion, and try to help people understand opposing points of view. I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other.
I think that the issue is that there are some things that don't directly have a victim, but increase the chance of causing an incident that does. There are truly "victimless" activities (sitting at home having a beer) and crimes with an obvious victim (homicide, theft). However, there are some activities (like drinking and driving) that while on their own are victimless, carry a risk of causing an incident with a victim (vehicular homicide). I think where the main disagreement in this thread is coming from is the level of acceptance of said risk, and how to deal with it.
Some people are saying "Any level of risk is acceptable, as long as no actual injury/death/etc. occurs then no crime has been committed." Others are saying "Some risk is okay, but activities that are truly dangerous should be illegal to prevent incidents from occurring." Of course, what defines "truly dangerous" is unclear.
I think we all agree that firing rounds into the air in a densely populated area is dangerous and stupid, and carries some risk that bullets will land on people or their property. However, there seems to be some disagreement as to whether the level of risk is acceptable, and whether it should be illegal to fire said rounds.
Think of some other things that people do that are dangerous and stupid, and consider whether you think the force of law should be allowed to stop them, or whether they should only be punished after they have caused injury, loss of property, or loss of life.
Personally, I think both arguments have merit, but both have their downsides too. Neither is a panacea for all the world's ills, and reasonable people should be able to disagree on which is "better" and have a reasonable discussion as to why.
I think that the issue is that there are some things that don't directly have a victim, but increase the chance of causing an incident that does. There are truly "victimless" activities (sitting at home having a beer) and crimes with an obvious victim (homicide, theft). However, there are some activities (like drinking and driving) that while on their own are victimless, carry a risk of causing an incident with a victim (vehicular homicide). I think where the main disagreement in this thread is coming from is the level of acceptance of said risk, and how to deal with it.
Some people are saying "Any level of risk is acceptable, as long as no actual injury/death/etc. occurs then no crime has been committed." Others are saying "Some risk is okay, but activities that are truly dangerous should be illegal to prevent incidents from occurring." Of course, what defines "truly dangerous" is unclear.
I think we all agree that firing rounds into the air in a densely populated area is dangerous and stupid, and carries some risk that bullets will land on people or their property. However, there seems to be some disagreement as to whether the level of risk is acceptable, and whether it should be illegal to fire said rounds.
Think of some other things that people do that are dangerous and stupid, and consider whether you think the force of law should be allowed to stop them, or whether they should only be punished after they have caused injury, loss of property, or loss of life.
Personally, I think both arguments have merit, but both have their downsides too. Neither is a panacea for all the world's ills, and reasonable people should be able to disagree on which is "better" and have a reasonable discussion as to why.
I can shoot my gun in the air all day long without a single projectile leaving my property, yet it is still illegal for me to do so.
In my action of firing into the air, I would not be violating the liberties nor property of any other, yet I can still be charged with a crime. This is what is known as "malum prohibitum."
Don't confuse him with statements representing anything with even a minuscule of logic in it...Just keep thinking: "safe and warmy, safe and warmy"...
He is...safe and warmy brother...safe and warmy...Understand that and you understand TReischl...
![[wave]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/011.gif "Wave [wave]")
xtry51
NES Member
That's called trespassing. If you're trespassing and it's posted not to do so, it doesn't matter if you get hit with a bullet. In the same way that if you trespass on property where someone is hunting and you get shot. You have no recourse because you violated someone else's property.
Your example is the same as saying "What if someone runs out into the middle of a gun range and gets shot."
Oh, and try reading all the definitions in the dictionary, not just the first one that pops up on Google. I know it takes a lot of effort to actually read them all, so I post the relevant one here:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/generation
You are taking what I call the "classic approach", trying to justify your argument by defining it in different terms. The simple fact is, when you shoot up in the air, there is a very tiny chance that bullet could do damage or injury (extremely infinitesimal), a REASONABLE person would agree that is probably not something he would do. In your second example, a REASONABLE person would not suggest eliminating guns, because that would leave people defenseless. The whole greater good vs lesser evil argument. There is no case where firing a gun into the air for the hell of it is a good idea. It is a foolish idea, and a really stupid argument.
With that said, I will leave it to galactically brain damaged to continue arguing about it.
You just go ahead and shoot someone on purpose or by accident when they are trespassing and see what happens to you. You are talking out your butt. The person has EVERY recourse against the shooter.
As for the definitions? What makes you think that the one you dig and dig for is the only one that applies? Did the Almighty die and leave you in charge?
xtry51
NES Member
I know lots of people who think shooting in the air is reasonable and you're apparently surrounded by others who would think it's OK. So what exactly are you defining as a reasonable person? It appears you define reasonable as "anything I agree with". Also rights have nothing to do with what you find as reasonable.
xtry51
NES Member
No, they don't have every recourse. There are plenty of cases and law protecting people shooting on their own property.
Also, I didn't "dig and dig" I read the dictionary entry, which apparently you did not. I like how you're argument is now I shouldn't be literate or learned. Probably not the best angle for winning and argument.
That Guy
Banned
Well the Grand Canyon can go take a flying leap. Stupid big hole in the ground. It's not even a real national monument - it's just a lack of ground.
Gotta love how these threads mutate. First it was just a guy carrying a gun who happened to have drank some alcohol.
Now we're talking about firing large projectiles into the air when that discussion started it was about bird/dove shot.
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
-Mike
xtry51
NES Member
Gotta love how these threads mutate. First it was just a guy carrying a gun who happened to have drank some alcohol.
Now we're talking about firing large projectiles into the air when that discussion started it was about bird/dove shot.
-Mike
What's more awesome is we now know TReischl roams around like his own little no knock SWAT team tresspassing on people's property and fully expects, like the SWAT team, that he has the law protecting him and thus no harm shall come and he can prosecute those evil land owners at will.
Totally worth the thread drift to find that one out
Liberty: Make Sure It's Safe And Warmy
I owe you a beer.
Next time I head out that way.
- - - Updated - - -
What's more awesome is we now know TReischl roams around like his own little no knock SWAT team tresspassing on people's property and fully expects, like the SWAT team, that he has the law protecting him and thus no harm shall come and he can prosecute those evil land owners at will.
Totally worth the thread drift to find that one out
As they should, they beleive in liberty and self reliance. They should be burned at the stake.
- Status
