Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ampersand]

The reason that it's was made illegal to wear body armor in a robbery probably goes back to the North Hollywood Bank Robbery, in which two masked robbers in massive full body armor equipped with illegally modified assault rifles managed to seriously injure several police and civilians. The bullets flew right through cars and the body armor the police wore. The police shot at the suspects but the bullets basically bounced off. Eventually, they got armor piercing weapons from a gun supply store and from SWAT, and managed to kill one suspect, but the other remained alive until he killed himself.

Simply put, the idea is that people who go through the trouble of acquiring all this material to carry out a crime are especially dangerous, in contrast to spur of the moment crimes, and should be punished more severely.

[MrGimp]

I heard it's also illegal to be in possession of a firearm when committing murder and robbery. Can't be sure with the gun laws in the USA, though.

Yeah its the same in the US, and in most states, you get an extra year for every bullet in the gun. 

And dont think youll get away with bringing an empty gun or even a fake gun.  If the victim has reason to believe they are about to die, it's still considered either assault with a deadly weapon or attempted murder.

They really dont want people pulling guns on people.  Its madness I tell you!!!

[Duke 2.0]

 What of fingers in pockets?

[MrGimp]

What of fingers in pockets?

Theyll still go after you for it if you do it in the course of a crime. 

But maybe if you get a good lawyer he could talk a way out of the fingers in pockets.  Too bad Johnny Cochran died.  He could get a man off of any ole finger pointin' charges!

[MrGimp]

and the Communist Party is banned

Huh? That seems blatantly unconstitutional and like it would have been challenged long ago

This has also confused me.

Oh we havent used that silly old constitution in a loooooooong time.  We just keep it around for show and because we like crusty old yellow paper.

Our presidents and lawmakers have a long and proud history of wiping their assholes with the constitution....it goes all the way back to George Washington.  I will not have people besmirching this noble practice!   

Many of our founding fathers didnt even want a bill of rights, or for the public to have the power to amend the constitution/bill of rights.

[Ampersand]

The communist Party isn't banned in the United States. It's just laughed out of the room whenever it shows up for something.

[Dwarf]

Its one of those silly technical laws. While adding a charge for making use of something that will facilitate a criminal's illegal act is logical, it sorta compels criminals aware of such charges to make a better effort to succeed in whatever they're doing.

I mean, a very extreme example is death penalty: If a guy is caught doing something that he can get death penalty for, he much more likely to fight to the bitter end taking more lives with him rather then give up and face the consequences.

To the bitter end fighters are assholes. The indeed really big gaping ones. If you've got death penalty anyway, kill yourself instead of more fine, innocent people.

[Vester]

The communist Party isn't banned in the United States. It's just laughed out of the room whenever it shows up for something.

Our communist party is hiding in the northern mountains. It's really their fault for rebelling.

[Lord Shonus]

and the Communist Party is banned

Huh? That seems blatantly unconstitutional and like it would have been challenged long ago

This has also confused me.

Oh we havent used that silly old constitution in a loooooooong time.  We just keep it around for show and because we like crusty old yellow paper.

Our presidents and lawmakers have a long and proud history of wiping their assholes with the constitution....it goes all the way back to George Washington.  I will not have people besmirching this noble practice!   

Many of our founding fathers didnt even want a bill of rights, or for the public to have the power to amend the constitution/bill of rights.

I'm going to assume you're being satirical here. Otherwise, your history teacher REALLY needs his/her license revoked. The ability to amend the constituion was present in the very earliest drafts, and was one of the only sections to make it through the convoluted compromise processes largely intact. As for the Bill of Rights, the reason it exists in amendment form is that ti was not intended to grant rights, but to clarify them. Those who opposed it did so on the grounds that all the necessary guarantees were already present, but Rhode Island and a number of other states wanted things to be blatantly spelled out. (This is the reason why the Second Amendment rarely comes up in court compared to the First. It's the only one to provide a qualifier, and nobody is sure how the courts will interpret it.)

[chaoticag]

Setting off a nuclear bomb is punishable by a $500 fine in Chico, California.

And painting lemons onto your car to say that you have been taken advantage of by a certain dealer is against the law in Washington DC.

[Lord Shonus]

Do you have a source and reasoning for that last? It seems like a most perplexing law.

The $500 fine is less ridiculous than it seems. Back in the early 90s, a teenager nearly irradiated a Detroit suburb with a homemade nuclear reactor, which would apply as a nuclear device under that ordinance.

[Neonivek]

Well painting lemons makes perfect sense to me.

It isn't uncommon for the States to pass laws to defend buisnesses even against justified besmirching.

If I remember correctly Texas has one for the Cattle/Beef Industry. (but I got that from television so I don't know)

[Arrkhal]

I mean, a very extreme example is death penalty: If a guy is caught doing something that he can get death penalty for, he much more likely to fight to the bitter end taking more lives with him rather then give up and face the consequences.

One theory behind England's high crime rates is that it's because of a draconian legal system a century or so ago, where nearly any crime was punished by death and/or torturous mutilation.  The end result was a well-entrenched criminal underground who would do anything, including murder, to get away with a crime.

And crime is basically a sociological phenomenon, which has very little (if anything) to do with legislation.  Some ridiculously high percent of crime in the USA has a gangster not only as the perpetrator, but as the victim, too.  Upwards of 70% of crime victims are gangbangers.

Which leads to absolutely ridiculous out-of-context statements, like "80% or whatever of victims of violent crime know their attacker" (because of course rival gangsters know each other), and "90% of guns are used to shoot someone in the owner's own family" (because if you ask a gang member who his "fambly" is, what's he going to say?  The gang).

[Neonivek]

I love rigged statistics!

Though the one I am thinking of right now isn't appropriate for this board. Though I seen it used on a whole class to try to shock them into submission. When I found out how his statistic was found I become very aggrivated.

[Lord Shonus]

Many "gun crime" statistics work any firearm related into their dataset. Mugger shoots housewife? That's a gun murder. Homeowner shoots intruder? Gun crime? Cop shoots and kills the guy driving a stolen tank down the street (this really happeneed)? Gun crime.