Couple uses guns to protect daughter

[ksinger]

Isn't car insurance mandatory?

In my state you can post a bond in lieu of liability insurance.
My car is paid off so there is no loan company requiring me to insure the car against theft, so I don't.
If my car is stolen I'll buy another, funded in part with the gobs of money I've saved by not spending a lifetime letting vampiers drain my money away with insurance premiums.
Odds are that won't happen and all that money is mine to keep.

The house is not paid off so I buy the minimum insurance required by my mortgage holder.
When the house is paid off in a few years I'll stop buying that.
I don't expect, nor am I willing to piss away good money, to cling to some idea of a "perfect" life.
Franklin D. Roosevelt said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.:

I'm much more crass; my philosophy is, Shit happens, but it probably won't.

LOL! You obviously do NOT live in the Great Plains - (in my case, Oklahoma). Going without insurance here is truly a game of Russian roulette, and is a false economy. It's not clinging to some idea of a "perfect" life, it's the acknowledgement that the odds of having your home/car/property very badly and expensively damaged, if not totally scraped OFF, are better than most other places. There is no way I could ever amass the amount to replace half or more of my home simply by saved premiums. I even know people who've been hit by tornadoes more than once. We have massive ice storms (trees fall on your house) in winter, flash floods and wildfires in the spring. And now we even have earthquakes! We're an all-purpose disaster state. My philosophy is Shit happens, it's happened to friends, it's happened to me, and statistically, there's a too good chance it could happen to them or me again.

Locations vary.

 

[justginger]

Except that "neighborhood lockdown" is in direct violation of the 4th Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[1]


I totally understand the outrage when the mass killings happen. I am also outraged but not at guns or gun owners. It is all so sad and depressing that a human being can commit these heinous crimes against others. We can all have these discussions here about what should be done but anything that is done has to take the Constitution and the Bill of Rights into account. They were written to guard against the slow erosion or outright removal of our rights as a people. When the people allow government to etch away at them a piece at a time in the interest (guise) of public safety pretty soon they will no longer exist.

You mean like the passage of the Patriot Act? American citizens have already cheerfully handed over substantial rights on the premise of the 'war on terrorism.' Taking weapons out of the hands of unlawful citizens could be done in raids similar to drug raids - you just have to fund the police presence to be able to spend the necessary time piecing together the network of individuals. And that might mean, gulp, higher taxes. People will cry, and moan, and lament the atrocious gun violence statistics, but no one's willing to give up one millimetre of their slice of the pie in any attempt to remedy the situation.

 

[redwood66]

I am not in favor of the Patriot Act for the reason that power corrupts which leads to overreaching actions beyond the scope and that has been proven. But your scenario of "neighborhood lockdown" suggested searching all homes house to house in the entire neighborhood. Surely the entire neighborhood is not complicit in something that happened at one house. Thus my reference to the 4th Amendment.

 

[Dancing Fire]

I support amending the US Constitution to take all guns away from civilians.
Other countries have done it and they have lower gun violence.
Guns just do more harm than good.

Kenny
b/c other countries don't have millions of illegal guns on the street. I'm all for gun control if we can clean up those illegal guns on the street.

 

[Dancing Fire]

I see. So third-party insurance is not mandatory? If you were to damage someone else's car you just pay out of pocket and that's that?

The bond covers liability.
If a successful claim exceeds the amount of the bond the balance is my responsibility.
Same as if a successful claim exceeds the dollar-amount of liability insurance you buy.

If you buy $300,000 of liability insurance but a successful claim is $700,000 you are on the hook for $400,000.
OH NOES!
You better get on the phone now and buy more insurance.

See. That What If? Fear Fear Fear! NOTHING BAD MUST EVER HAPPEN TO ME mentality has no end.

In our case there's only a difference of $30 per yr premium b/t a $500K liability vs a $300K liability. We are paying $3200 per yr for full coverage of our 4 cars.

 

[justginger]

I am not in favor of the Patriot Act for the reason that power corrupts which leads to overreaching actions beyond the scope and that has been proven. But your scenario of "neighborhood lockdown" suggested searching all homes house to house in the entire neighborhood. Surely the entire neighborhood is not complicit in something that happened at one house. Thus my reference to the 4th Amendment.

What you you refer to was not suggested by myself. I was merely stating that I think raids of neighbourhoods would be entirely constitutional, if the police force were given enough support in order to produce probable cause.

 

[redwood66]

I am not in favor of the Patriot Act for the reason that power corrupts which leads to overreaching actions beyond the scope and that has been proven. But your scenario of "neighborhood lockdown" suggested searching all homes house to house in the entire neighborhood. Surely the entire neighborhood is not complicit in something that happened at one house. Thus my reference to the 4th Amendment.

What you you refer to was not suggested by myself. I was merely stating that I think raids of neighbourhoods would be entirely constitutional, if the police force were given enough support in order to produce probable cause.

With all due respect that would never be constitutional and thank goodness the people of the US would not allow it. I think this conversation has run its course and it has been interesting. Thank you!

 

[justginger]

I am not in favor of the Patriot Act for the reason that power corrupts which leads to overreaching actions beyond the scope and that has been proven. But your scenario of "neighborhood lockdown" suggested searching all homes house to house in the entire neighborhood. Surely the entire neighborhood is not complicit in something that happened at one house. Thus my reference to the 4th Amendment.

What you you refer to was not suggested by myself. I was merely stating that I think raids of neighbourhoods would be entirely constitutional, if the police force were given enough support in order to produce probable cause.

With all due respect that would never be constitutional and thank goodness the people of the US would not allow it. I think this conversation has run its course and it has been interesting. Thank you!

I do not think you understand what I am saying. it was not me who suggested random neighbourhood raids. I am stating that raids could, and are, done with probable cause, in accordance to the 4th Amendment, and perhaps it would be wise to put more resources towards doing just that.

 

[packrat]

I don't know how they'd be able to. There's not enough man power to do this in every city. We have 1 officer per 1,000 people. If you add in the county guys and take the entire county into consideration, we have 1 officer for...2,000 people maybe? Things don't move swiftly enough when they do get word of something illegal, with our justice system. They can't just mosey on up to the door and say open up, give us your illegal weapons. And a raid of an entire neighborhood..there's just no way.

 

[redwood66]

It doesn't matter if you suggested it or not, you agree with it or seem to. I however do not agree that any raid of a whole neighborhood is in accordance with the 4th Amendment. Getting probable cause for raiding an entire neighborhood would be nigh impossible and smacks of Hitler and other oppressive regimes more recent. The ACLU and every other civil rights group would bury the agency that attempted it, as well they should.

 

[packrat]

I didn't watch the videos. Someone using or altering a firearm to use it in a manner it is not meant for, is NOT a responsible gun owner. As a RESPONSIBLE gun owner, I was not even aware that such a thing is possible. I don't even know what it is. I would therefore be using it in a proper and responsible manner. Someone who is also teaching a TWO year old how to operate a firearm is AGAIN NOT A RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNER. ANYONE who would teach a TWO year old to use a gun is ****ING STUPID. Is that really something that needs to be explained to everyone here? Is this why we have those gawd awful warnings on things???? Seriously people. DO NOT INSERT CURLING IRON INTO RECTUM. Hello? We have to tell people NOT to do this? DO NOT STICK FORK INTO EYEBALL. It really should be COMMON KNOWLEDGE that you do not teach a toddler to use a firearm and I would like to think that the average person would realize that those people, are, again, ****ING STUPID AND NOT RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERS.

STUPID PEOPLE DO STUPID SHIT WITH THINGS. THEY are the ones we need to worry about and get rid of, THEY are the problem. I KNOW what to do w/MY curling iron. I KNOW a fork goes in my mouth and not my eyeball.

 

[justginger]

It doesn't matter if you suggested it or not, you agree with it or seem to. I however do not agree that any raid of a whole neighborhood is in accordance with the 4th Amendment. Getting probable cause for raiding an entire neighborhood would be nigh impossible and smacks of Hitler and other oppressive regimes more recent. The ACLU and every other civil rights group would bury the agency that attempted it, as well they should.

Again, you seem to not understand my opinion. You are disagreeing with something I never stated. No, police can not go door to door and lock down an entire neighbourhood. Yes, within projects and low income housing it would be completely possible for legitimate probable cause to be found for searching a good number of homes (just as is done in drug stings, one of which resulted in 40 arrests for meth in my hometown last month). Fund more police if you want more law-breakers caught. Don't do so if you're fine with criminals possessing firearms illegally.

 

[justginger]

I don't know how they'd be able to. There's not enough man power to do this in every city. We have 1 officer per 1,000 people. If you add in the county guys and take the entire county into consideration, we have 1 officer for...2,000 people maybe? Things don't move swiftly enough when they do get word of something illegal, with our justice system. They can't just mosey on up to the door and say open up, give us your illegal weapons. And a raid of an entire neighborhood..there's just no way.

I understand. That is why I referred to people being unwilling to pay higher taxes and fund the law enforcement necessary to do such work. Everyone wants to cry and stop it, but no one wants to pay the price to do so. If guns only in the hands of criminals are to blame for the shameful gun violence, getting them away needs to be a social priority, no?

 

[redwood66]

justginger I apologize. I just went back and it wasn't you who originally said neighborhood raids. Forgive me. But I still do not agree with a practice such as that.

The system is not perfect but in protecting people's freedoms it is the best there is. No doubt crime is a problem and I wish it was not so. But trampling the rights of the whole because some cannot act like human beings is not the answer.

 

[justginger]

justginger I apologize. I just went back and it wasn't you who originally said neighborhood raids. Forgive me. But I still do not agree with a practice such as that.

I understand, I thought it was a miscommunication. I would not support random home invasion and searches. I just think that additional funding would go a long way towards legitimate stings to remove firearms from illegitimate and dangerous 'owners.'

 

[redwood66]

I get that. But packrat is right that the cost for that kind of force could never be afforded. Most cities don't have the funds to keep as many officers as they should let alone how many would be optimal. California's Dept. of Corrections has over 30 prisons and its not enough and they are overcrowded. The costs are astronomical already.

 

[justginger]

I get that. But packrat is right that the cost for that kind of force could never be afforded. Most cities don't have the funds to keep as many officers as they should let alone how many would be optimal. California's Dept. of Corrections has over 30 prisons and its not enough and they are overcrowded. The costs are astronomical already.

How would prison numbers be impacted overall if marijuana-related offenders were not jailed (theoretically, if it were legalized everywhere)? I know nothing of the percentages of inmates of various crimes.

 

[redwood66]

I am not sure of percentages anymore but marijuana-only crimes would not be a high percentage. Problem is the preponderance of violent criminals have drug charges also and more likely heroin or meth are involved not simply marijuana. I don't agree with the legalization of marijuana. It opens up a whole host of problems for employers who simply cannot have employees under the influence for safety reasons. And drunk driving is already bad enough. I have seen too many people who it was definitely a gateway drug to other more potent ones.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

If I go into a grocery store and have to go through a a metal detector, such as they have in court houses, to see if I am carrying a weapon, how is that legal? In Chicago this pass through is in many stores, We have one store out here(suburbs that has it. Schools have it, All this is legal.

I believe in brainstorming for ideas. Redwood, you want the status quo, so there is no point in discussing this with you. Hitler always comes up from those of you with nothing new to say. You see its those very people in the neighborbood who want the change. So they may agree to it, then it wouldn't be illegal.

The reason i posted the Supreme court information was to show that for the majority of time the second amendment has been accepted as is. The clamour for change has come about from the surge in criminal activity and so to my mind that is what should be addressed. I feel certain there is a way, maybe not my way , but if enough pressure is put to bear, change will occur. I understand that crime has been reduced, while gun ownership has increased. In my day growing up the topic of gun ownership never came up. When tragedies occur people buy guns. If you don't address the criminal problem, a change in the Supreme Court makeup may change your second amendment.

It was'nt Ginger who was the Hitler, it was me. I want target areas, not the whole US. We would not need all those police. Maybe we just need metal detectors, like passing through a gated community.

Ginger keep thinking, you have a good brain. The status quo may have to change -gun lobby or not.


Annette

 

[redwood66]

Don't assume what I want. I spent too many years watching and interacting with criminals and have a different perspective than many on how to deal with them. I did not throw you into a pile of liberal, gun hating, let the government take over everything for you, people. I listened to your opinion and I am also entitled to mine as different from yours as it may be - thank you 1st Amendment. I will beat the drum endlessly just as you do. You yourself are speaking for entire neighborhoods who you think would welcome raids. I beg to differ. I am all for communities that are mired in gangs and criminal activity to take back their streets. But it must be within the law and the Constitution otherwise we are no better than the criminals. You are in Illinois so it is your 2nd Amendment also, and I would defend it for you just as vigorously.

We are not going to solve the world's problems here in Hangout but the discussion is sure enlightening because I don't have interaction with many liberals "where I live"

That was for you Kenny!

 

[packrat]

I don't know how they'd be able to. There's not enough man power to do this in every city. We have 1 officer per 1,000 people. If you add in the county guys and take the entire county into consideration, we have 1 officer for...2,000 people maybe? Things don't move swiftly enough when they do get word of something illegal, with our justice system. They can't just mosey on up to the door and say open up, give us your illegal weapons. And a raid of an entire neighborhood..there's just no way.

I understand. That is why I referred to people being unwilling to pay higher taxes and fund the law enforcement necessary to do such work. Everyone wants to cry and stop it, but no one wants to pay the price to do so. If guns only in the hands of criminals are to blame for the shameful gun violence, getting them away needs to be a social priority, no?

Yes, it totally and completely 100% SHOULD be. But it's not and it never WILL be. I've said it a hundred times and will say it 100 more. Money and rights. End of story. We can't step on anyone's rights, even a criminals, b/c there will always be someone to cry and moan about it. Nobody wants to be the one who says that sometimes there are just times when you have to be told unequivocally that you just can NOT do some things. Cripes, you can murder someone in cold blood and there are those that even if the actual murder was broadcast on live TV world wide so that 100 million people witnessed it and the murderer spoke aloud during it, describing and admitting to what he was doing so that there could not be ONE iota of doubt, would STILL jump to that person's defense---because we have "rights".

It's stupid, is what it is. Pedophiles have rights. If Hitler were alive today, there are those that would defend him and his "rights". And if you've got the most money and the loudest voice, well, there you are and there you be.

I would think our right to be SAFE would trump a criminals right to obtain weapons illegally and shoot people with it, but I would be wrong. There comes a time when it needs to be said "This is 100% not acceptable and if you can't follow the rules then I will **** you up" But it will never happen.

Unless you try to break into my house and hurt my kids. Because I WILL **** you up.

We almost had an incident at OUR house, a couple weeks ago, late at night, turned out fine. Everyone knows this is a cops house-you'd think our place would be the last one they'd mess with.

 

[redwood66]

Hitler is brought up by those who defend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights because it absolutely pertains to this discussion. Brushing it off just shows naiveté in historical facts. Hitler could not have done what he did were he in the US, then or now, precisely because of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Why would anyone want to erode those rights so the power hungry may take advantage?

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759


The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so. - Hitler, April 11 1942

 

[movie zombie]

sigh: how quickly forget.
target neighborhoods reminds me of target ethnic groups....
it was not too long ago that this woman grew up in Alabama and if you were black and didn't have a gun in the home you were a target:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIDgDFvyeS8

and don't tell me we've moved beyond that.

 

[MMtwo]

Maybe we can just agree to disagree. If there is a zombie apocalypse, I'll have a helicopter and gun cache ready to go (the fiance is a helicopter pilot). If you get in trouble, flash your diamond in Morse code I'll give ya a hand.

You know, this is why the internet's greatest purpose is to look at cats, diamonds and grandchildren.

 

[arkieb1]

US society has the notion of the right of gun ownership ingrained in your psyche. It's part of your constitution and the way many US citizens perceive part of their freedom and liberty. When high numbers of people are shot and killed every day where does it end? People in the US are very passionate about their guns and gun ownership party for protection by also because the removal of guns is violating one of your perceived rights, I understand that.

Having said that, I am with the minority - when does the rights of the whole of society and the protection of the whole of society outweigh the rights of the individual? People have the right not to live in fear irrespective of where they live (bad neighbourhoods as well as the good ones) irrespective of what they earn and so on.... as stated in another thread it's a chicken and egg argument with no winners. You are however correct in stating guns aren't bad, it is how they are used that is bad, but if no one has them then it makes the people who go out of their way to want to act in a unlawful/bad way a hell of a lot more difficult.

When guns were removed in Australia other sorts of crimes didn't go up they stayed much the same......It did however, change the attitude underpinning our society. We don't need anything to defend ourselves from violent crimes because by in large so few happen here we don't have to think about it. Sure anyone can be in the wrong place at the wrong time, but statistically I am not likely to be shot if I go to a good or a bad neighbourhood on any given day. I am not likely to be shot it I happen to live in a poor department of housing suburb and so on. I don't have a passive aggressive notion that I must carry some sort of weapon because someone might attack me. We just don't think like that.

It's an unpopular political issue that most of your politicians don't have the balls to deal with, because the average American won't put up with anyone forcing them to give up one of their so called rights. I think I am one of the people being accused of US bashing. I am under no particular illusion that the situation is magically going to get better until you start repairing multiple problems underpinning your social and economic core, but enforcing tighter gun laws would be a pretty good start. If you want to advocate that you have to right to keep killing each other because gun removal is attacking some intrinsic cultural right, then it makes me think of an old saying;
" you can't see the forest for the trees."

 

[JaneSmith]

 

[packrat]

so, ok, let's take guns away. Let's figure this out. Let's say it's now a law, no guns. So, how? How do we keep them from crossing our borders? Cuz we do SOOOOO well keeping people and drugs out, of course, but for the sake of argument, HOW would it be done? HOW would we get the guns from the gangs in the big cities? Your average Joe, who already *doesn't* do drugs b/c they're illegal, and owns guns *legally* would do the right thing and turn their guns in. probably look thru the big ole list and cross his name off and everystuff b/c that's what Average Joe does. But so yeah...everyone else...who doesn't do legal things or play by the rules or go by the books...how do we take them from *them*? How do we keep them from being smuggled into our country?

It's not like in preschool when I tell the kids to put something back and they don't "Fine, it's Miss Missi's now, you get it back when Miss Missi sees that you can make good choices"

Seriously. It's NOT as easy a solution with elevently bazilion people here, when you consider we aren't really just talking about the US, we're talking about en entire connected side of the world from the very tip of North America to the very tip of South America. We can't just put signs out "NO GUNS" and then all these people go awwww man, dangit, no guns, well...crap...I guess I can't bring this gun with me. and everyone turns around all dejected and goes home.

 

[msop04]

so, ok, let's take guns away. Let's figure this out. Let's say it's now a law, no guns. So, how? How do we keep them from crossing our borders? Cuz we do SOOOOO well keeping people and drugs out, of course, but for the sake of argument, HOW would it be done? HOW would we get the guns from the gangs in the big cities? Your average Joe, who already *doesn't* do drugs b/c they're illegal, and owns guns *legally* would do the right thing and turn their guns in. probably look thru the big ole list and cross his name off and everystuff b/c that's what Average Joe does. But so yeah...everyone else...who doesn't do legal things or play by the rules or go by the books...how do we take them from *them*? How do we keep them from being smuggled into our country?

It's not like in preschool when I tell the kids to put something back and they don't "Fine, it's Miss Missi's now, you get it back when Miss Missi sees that you can make good choices"

Seriously. It's NOT as easy a solution with elevently bazilion people here, when you consider we aren't really just talking about the US, we're talking about en entire connected side of the world from the very tip of North America to the very tip of South America. We can't just put signs out "NO GUNS" and then all these people go awwww man, dangit, no guns, well...crap...I guess I can't bring this gun with me. and everyone turns around all dejected and goes home.

packrat, you are 100% correct... stricter gun laws can be a good idea -- in theory. However, (as you have stated) we do not live in a world that follows the rules, therefore we cannot live by such theoretical initiatives/laws. With that said, if you don't like firearms or feel they are unnecessary, then don't own them or use them. Should I need to, I'd rather know that I have the right to own firearms to protect myself and my family... whose lives are anything but theoretical to me.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

MZ--- The police have targeted neighborhoods and areas forever--not a new idea. Not until the late 70's did police in the Chicago area release any crime stats or police distribution stats. It took a lot of effort and pressure to get that info. Once communities could see where crime and police were they were able to move police around to better cover high crime areas. What was found was that sometimes good neighborhoods received more police presence than high crime areas.

Targeting neighborhoods is not indicative of ethnic cleansing. Its considering good policing.

I have maintained looking for a legal way --not illegal. I offered suggestions and my suggestions turned me into Hitler(I know not you).

When ideas are labeled Hitlerish, you diminish what actually happened in Europe. Over used phrases devalue the very thing that we should remember. It shows you have run out of any new thoughts.


Annette

I just remembered a whole neighborhood in Brooklyn took it upon themselves to find a solution for crime in their area. I know it can be done.

 

[redwood66]

Yep that was me Annette and I did not turn you into Hitler. The communities that have gangs that run rampant should absolutely do something about their own areas because they are despicable and lawless - areas of Chicago and LA are on the top of that list. It is my duty to my community to help in any way I can which I do. My point, which escapes you, is changing the Bill of Rights and the Constitution is not the answer. Let those communities that allow such lawlessness combat their own issues and pay for it with their own $. They could have neighborhood watch type systems or become citizen patrol personnel. Cops in some of those inner city locations are leary to patrol or get out of their cars because it is so bad. But hell no, the people who live there scream that the government should take care of it. Yet kids are raised in those communities with no respect for human life or others' personal property.

I am sure you think me an uneducated redneck who has never been anywhere. You would be wrong and your hubris is showing in your condescension toward my posts and my opinion. I have been to Dachau which was an extremely sobering experience. It is a place that all Europeans should be required to visit and to all other peoples it would be a good idea also. Images on the internet or TV are not the same as standing on the ground. So you feel we are not allowed to mention Hitler any longer? I think it should be mentioned more often so people have to remember. Just like 9-11.