We NEED more laws...

We NEED more laws against parking illegally.

:rofl:


On edit:

Image should work now.

No picture, or whatever your point is.

Forbidden to view image. I feel slighted.

Laws aren't going to do much more good, unless you start sentencing people to jail for illegal parking, maybe.

What will work a treat is an obstacle to illegal parking. Like an extended curb in front of a fire hydrant.

Kind of like mandatory licensing and registration act as obstacles in the path of people who want to get firearms and should not be permitted to do so.

The harder you make it to do something, the lower the risk it will happen.

I just felt like saying AARGH!

Fifth Amendment issue. A person doesn't have to self incriminate. Registering an illegal gun would be self-incriminating, therefore they are protected from having to do it.

And yes, I've heard it many times.

The protection against self-crimination plainly applies to testimony in court.

Sometimes, judges are utter moron. It happens up here too.

Discussed here: http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.haynes.html

which is why I was able to characterize it as I did.

That decision still carries the force of law in the U.S. A person can't be required to register their illegal gun. That's the way it is.

it works where you're from, but my rights don't suddenly shut off when i step out of a courtroom.

rights that apply in a courtroom suddenly apply when you step out of it.

Must you be Mirandized before you order lunch, too?

being mirandized my right to not self incriminate extends to the lunch counter or anywhere else i might want to go in the USA.
So does my right to remain silent. Wheather or not a person chooses to exercise their rights is up them, not some judge or cop.

bzzt.

See post 23, if you feel like intelligent, informed discussion.

So, your intelligent and informed opinion is that , all criminal cases start and end inside of a courtroom?

Law enforcement officers are trained early on to get suspects to admit guilt, with nice talk.

Example. ,, Hello there sir, do you know why i pulled you over today? if you answer ,, well you got me officer, i guess i did blow through

that red light, you have just witnessed against yourself in a criminal case.

The proper answer should be , hell no officer, and i will not answer any more questions today until i have had a chance to speak with my attorney.

A nice illustration of how my 5th amendment rights extend WAY beyond a courtroom.

nt

http://www.tgm.org/US_constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentv

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

If there's a criminal case around somewhere when someone attempts to purchase a firearm, it's certainly hidden itself well.

It is a violation of the 5th to be forced to prepare documents that are meant to be used against you later in a court of law or such documents would be thrown out of the case which would render gun registration for fighting crime useless. It would then only be useful for gun confiscation.

Forcing a criminal to registering guns he owns illegally would be like forcing him to confess to his crimes, violation of the 5th

Obviously this extends outside of a courtroom because supposed crimes most often occur outside court

But CRIMINAL CASES do not exist at least until the crime comes to the attention of some law enforcement authority.

And people are not free-floating witnesses; they are witnesses IN COURTS.

nor shall be compelled in any criminal case
to be a witness against himself


Forcing a criminal to registering guns he owns illegally would be like forcing him to confess to his crimes, violation of the 5th

Oddly enough, nobody is actually forcing any criminals to own guns illegally, so nobody is forcing any criminal to register any gun.

The burble level around here seems to be rising uncontrollably.

"Oddly enough, nobody is actually forcing any criminals to own guns illegally, so nobody is forcing any criminal to register any gun."

By your logic I'm not required to register my car because I'm not required to own a car

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Or we could just ban fire hydrants.

doesn't even rise to the level of "fuzzy".

:rofl:

Recipient of todays Bozo award.

If you thought it was about something other than:

An antigun group regularly calling for more laws but can't be bothered to obey the law themselves...


You fail.

So you'd agree with what I've been saying forever: there just ain't no such animal as that "law-abiding gun owner".

Show me somebody who has never parked illegally (myself, a parking-law fanatic, included), and I'll show you somebody who died in the 19th century.

Of course, those gun owners aren't proposing laws that everyone, including non gun owners must follow, and illegally parking.



Your failure to make that obvious distinction...is noted.

Analogies are based on RELEVANT similarities, and can be rebutted by RELEVANT distinctions.

There is nothing remotely relevant about the distinction you have attempted to draw.

In actual fact, it isn't even a distinction. Because it simply has nothing whatsoever to do with anything I said.


By the way, I'm not prepared to accept a "snapshot" as evidence of "illegally parking". Anybody got a video?

There is quite definitely a distinction between "stopping" and "parking", and a snapshot can only show stopping.

Whatever. I don't really care.

The really relevant distinction here is between parking and possession of firearms.

One could, by way of analogy, say that parking in front of a fire hydrant could endanger life and property, just as pulling the trigger of a gun can. But I'd challenge anyone to find two examples of when any life or property was actually endangered by parking in front of a fire hydrant. In this instance, the vehicle looks anything but unattended, so any danger that might arise could obviously be eliminated in seconds. Much harder to eliminate the danger in the other instance once that trigger is pulled, eh?


Anyhow, remember this little thread next time somebody starts jabbering about "law-abiding gun owners". I know I will.

"There is nothing remotely relevant about the distinction you have attempted to draw."


Your opinion is noted.

"In actual fact, it isn't even a distinction. Because it simply has nothing whatsoever to do with anything I said."


Your Opinion of the importance and relevance of your opinion is also noted.


And recognized for what it is.

"One could, by way of analogy, say that parking in front of a fire hydrant could endanger life and property, just as pulling the trigger of a gun can. But I'd challenge anyone to find two examples of when any life or property was actually endangered by parking in front of a fire hydrant. In this instance, the vehicle looks anything but unattended, so any danger that might arise could obviously be eliminated in seconds. Much harder to eliminate the danger in the other instance once that trigger is pulled, eh?"

Crystal ball much? What information did you glean, that the rest of us apparently did not, that indicates that the actual owners, or even driver of the vehicle - you know, the person/s likely to have have the keys and be able to move it, was anywhere in the vacinity?

The only MEANINGFUL definition of "anything but unattended", when it comes to "any danger that might arise" being "eliminated in seconds" in other words.

Your sophistry is noted.


And recognized for what it is.

Which way will my dog aim when nature calls?

Hey, at least it wasn't a handicapped parking space.