Montville Township residents ask for stricter gun laws

[SecularMotion]

MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP, Ohio -- Residents are saying enough is enough after at least two separate cases of wayward bullets lodging into homes.

A packed meeting at the Montville Township Hall included police, trustees and fed up residents.

On the agenda?

- Getting a tougher say for townships for local firearm laws.

- Aggressively prosecuting irresponsible gun owners, right now for the bullets that flew last week.

- Putting dangerous gun owners on notice. Fed up homeowners say they aren't going to wait for the next random assault on their homes and families.

http://www.wkyc.com/story/news/local/medina-county/2015/06/10/montville-twp-guns/28778885/

[Shamash]

1. Are you posting this here because you think we'd object to policing irresponsible gun owners?

Speaking for myself, I have no problem with that.

But, as long as you're here and in a perfect world would care enough to actually take part in your own post, how do you feel about the quote in the linked story "What's going to be asked of the legislature is to give townships independent authority to make those decisions in their own townships."

Do you feel that townships should be able to pass laws stricter than state laws on a subject like guns, or abortion, or same-sex marriage, or LGBT issues?

Because allowing stricter laws for one would be a precedent to allow stricter laws on any of them.

[SecularMotion]

2. Who are you speaking for besides yourself?

"Are you posting this here because you think we'd object to policing irresponsible gun owners?"

Who is "we"?

[Shamash]

3. Kind of an obvious deflection, don't you think?

Since the RKBA group is more than "me", it is perfectly reasonable to assume it was addressed to a group (liberal RKBA supporters) of which I am a member, hence the "we". If someone in that group disagrees with what I said, they are perfectly free to express that disagreement.

I have to assume you posted here because you know full well it cannot be commented on by RKBA supporters over at GCRA.

So, either a) you're trolling or b) you are genuinely looking for discussion.

I'm discussing, and have raised a valid question. Are you going to answer it or dodge it again?

[SecularMotion]

4. I've never heard of a group on DU called "liberal RKBA supporters"

Do you have your own forum?

As far as your question, I think Montville Township should be able to "aggressively prosecute irresponsible gun owners"

Don't you agree?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. "Don't you agree?"

He answered that at the start of his first reply.

[Shamash]

8. Definite dodging, then

Apart from the implication that the group where you posted this story is not liberal RKBA supporters and the ridiculousness that a moderator for Gun Control Reform Activism would be unaware of this, you again went out of your way to avoid answering the entirely valid and on-topic question I asked, instead substituting in a non-answer for a question I didn't ask.

However, out of a sense of courtesy that you apparently lack, I will answer your question. I do not think that Montville Township or any township should be able to prosecute, aggressively or otherwise, anyone for conduct that is allowed by a higher level government law or regulation (state or federal). So for instance, I do not want some Mississippi or Texas town passing their own laws to "aggressively prosecute" abortion providers in violation of a higher-level law, or to criminalize being married as a same-sex couple in violation of a higher level law, or prosecute a gun owner or user for conduct allowable under a higher level law.

If state law has ordinances regarding irresponsible gun use and people in Montville are irresponsibly using guns, then by all means prosecute them. If there are laws about discharging guns in populated areas (which is irresponsible, IMHO), ditto. If they are violating state guidelines for what is allowed in areas zoned for a particular use, ditto. Aggressively, even. Which the astute reader will note in my first comment, making your "question" rather pointless.

Don't you agree...that a straightforward answer that evidences ethical consistency and liberal values is better than trying to be snarky and evasive?

Logical Fallacy of Dodging the Question
The logical fallacy of dodging the question occurs when the reaction to a question is avoiding answering the quesiton. This is one way of avoiding the issue. As with all fallacies, this fallacy can be consciously used for deception or the fallacy can be made because of misunderstanding or for some other reason. Here are some of the ways that this is done: refusing to answer the question, changing the subject, explaining redundant things or irrelevant things as a distraction, creating an excuse not to answer, repeating the question as a question, answering the question with another question, answering things that weren't asked, questioning the question, challenging the question, giving an answer in the wrong context.

[SecularMotion]

9. The issue is how Montville Township should handle irresponsible gun owners

Your question is not valid. Equating regulations on irresponsible gun use with abortion or LGBT rights is RW bullshit and doesn't belong on a liberal board.

[friendly_iconoclast]

10. "Your question is not valid." Simply declaring that does not make it so

The question was about statewide pre-emption laws, and whether it is permissible
to try and override them. The comparison is entirely valid.

[Shamash]

13. Dodging again

I fully answered your question on irresponsible gun use and how Montville should handle it (i.e. within the framework of existing state law). You are simply unwilling to answer mine on whether towns should be able to pass laws more restrictive than state laws to deal with it, despite this topic being a genuine issue when it comes to all rights liberals hold to be important.

And I will be more than happy to continue to give polite, well-reasoned replies while you embarrass yourself with evasions and insults. But, I am more than willing to accept that you believe what you are saying about my comments. If you feel that a randomly selected group of DU members will think my comments supporting reproductive choice and same-sex marriage and asking a valid question about state pre-emption laws are "RW bullshit" that "doesn't belong on a liberal board", then by all means report that comment as abusive and we can let a jury decide.

I believe the vernacular is "put up or shut up".

[SecularMotion]

14. If you are able to pose questions without RW framing

you may get a response. The same goes for the rest of the "liberal RKBA supporters" on DU.

[Shamash]

17. Speaking of questions

You went out of your way to ask a leading question in comment #4, yet I answered it in a way that avoided the obvious spin you were trying to put on it and did so in a manner that confirmed my liberal beliefs. I guess that if I were using "RW framing" in my question and you cannot reply as well as I did to your leading question, it simply means that cognitively speaking, you just aren't up to my level. Perhaps it would be better for your ego if you made future posts of this type someplace where polite and rational responses to it are not permitted.

[SecularMotion]

18. You're correct

I won't stoop to your level.

[Shamash]

19. Ooh, the "you are but what am I?" defense! Quick, let me find a third-grader to rebut that...

[Duckhunter935]

24. That poster has a history of not answering

Simple questions.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

20. "RW framing" = anything you are unable to refute

Supposedly the RWers are unreasonable yet so many things labeled as "RW framing" cannot be refuted with reason. You seem to be suggesting RWers can pose arguments you are unable to refute.

[DonP]

25. Wait! I thought it was; "NRA Talking Points" = anything you can't refute?

This is all so confusing.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

15. conclusion:

State preemption laws are "RWBS". QED

[S_B_Jackson]

23. I believe that Montville Township will have an uphill battle to pass anything which will survive

a legal challenge on the basis of that Ohio statutory enactment pre-empts all local gun control efforts.

Now if the township simply wishes to adopt a policy of strong enforcement of already enacted state ordinances, then yes, they can prosecute as aggressively as they wish.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

5. For the record...

...I'm okay with certain legal differences between urban and rural areas relating to firearm conduct. Having said that, the linked story relates a serious problem but is rather short on facts. I'd be interested to know the details of these incidents. What were the circumstances of the shots fired? Who fired them? Was it a cop or a civilian?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

6. It's not about gun ownership but negligent behavior. It seems none of the laws proposed would

infringe on the RKBA but rather impose harsher penalties for failing to take reasonable account of what is behind where you're aiming (one of the fundamental rules of gun USE).

It's akin to the mistaken argument of the Controllers. It's not wrong to yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theater, it's only illegal to do so inappropriately. There is no ban upon the word, only the circumstances of its use.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

11. And why is that so damned hard to understand?

The numerous times that I replied to posts about analogous laws affecting free speech as being "prior restraint" has no one that I've addressed taken the time to google that?

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22prior+restraint%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Is it only the pro-RKBA folks that can see the hypocrisy?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

21. "Is it only the pro-RKBA folks that can see the hypocrisy?"

There are three groups: staunchly pro-RKBA, the undecided middle and The Controllers, whom I shall refer to as, The Controllers.



The far ends of the spectrum know they will never convince their opposites. We aren't arguing to convert each other we're arguing to influence the undecided middle. Considering how much energy The Controllers invest in deception, selective statistics, disingenuous framing and vilification we should not be surprised that hypocrisy would also be found in their "arsenal."

We should just "stick to our guns" and continue to argue facts, specifications, history, law and precedent. After all, as another OP notes: 68% of the nation would rather live with us and another 10% is the undecided middle. Four-fifths of the population is on our side or at least willing to hear us out?

We got this.

[Eleanors38]

12. No problem with the last 2 concerns, why would you think otherwise?

The first concern will depend on the laws and constitution of both the State of Ohio and the United States; home-rule, exemption status for the former, the U.S.Constitution for the latter.

[ileus]

16. I recommend counter-assault firearms in this case.

There's no reason in today's America folks have to be willing victims of violence. There's way too many fine self defense firearms to choose from, accurate, reliable, affordable.


Hopefully the fine people of this area can stand and fight for their 2A rights.

[virginia mountainman]

22. They are so full of crap..

It is already a FELONY in Ohio to handle a firearm recklessly.:

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.162


Do they not know that already? I live in Virginia, and even I know that?! Why are they asking for new laws, are they really that ignorant??? IF they are really that ignorant, why is anyone giving them the time of day?? If they are so fed up, why are they wasting time of this drivel, instead of insisting that current law is enforced with some felonies being handed out?

That law is on the books, why not enforce it?? Why do they want "new laws"?

O, I get it, this is grounds for a "new call for gun control" Good luck with that .... LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ohio has a very strong, and well enforced preemption law, thank goodness.... Montville township can try, then they can write checks, as other municipalities have.