NC, USA: Man Fires Shotgun Into Neighbor's Yard Sign Against Ammendment One

[Rilvor]

Make no mistake folks, these people are not big angry gorillas.

They are, in my experiences, more akin to excited chimpanzees.


I'm going to agree with Term that this man, despite how much his behavior is eye-roll inducing, has done nothing wrong unless he took that sign from anywhere other than his own property. From his dialogue, he merely spouts his beliefs and that he doesn't like a sign for opposing beliefs "near his property" as it were. How expresses it is very silly, of course. Nothing to see here really.

 

[Trpdwarf]

Since when? Because I've seen plenty of people voice their opinions through artistic expression, protests, and other means without having another party present for discourse. Hell, some people have set themselves on fire or defecate on an American flag to demonstrate their convictions to their opinion. There's no rule that voicing or expressing yourself has to be done through a one-on-one discourse.



How do you know this video was meant to intimidate? For all we know, if the sign was placed on his property it's absolutely his right to dispose of it in any means he sees fit. If he chooses to use it as target practice, who are we to say he can't as long as he's abiding by local gun ordinances?



The only way this wasn't responsible is if he stole that sign off of someone else's lawn, because then he'd actually be committing a crime.



I've seen a lot of people make that claim too. In the video he says "near" his property which could mean anything. Was it on his lawn? Was it on someone elses? Was it on public property?

But to me the main issue people are having here is what he did with the sign rather than how he acquired it, so I'm going on the assumption he got it legitimately for the purpose of talking about expression.

Yes there are various mediums through which you can "Voice" your opinion. However Violence is not a medium appropriate for getting your point across. Neither is threatening behavior, harassment, bullying, and intimidation.

That said...I cannot see this as anything other than an intimidation tactic. The guy is choosing to use an object with symbolism attached and engaging in what is a violent act (shooting it). That is intimidationg as far as I am concerned. Since when is that guy's backyard a shooting range? What happens if the dude missed? What else could he have possible hit instead? You want to fire a gun, fire it for it's actual purpose (self defense or hunting) or go to a shooting range. This sure as hell ISN'T a case of someone responsible and respectful about gun ownership but that is another issue in of itself.

At the end of the day the guy is an idiot. Hur hur let me get my gun and a video camera and show yall what I think. Great job. So now instead of gaining support you've just turned hundreds away from wanting to hear a single thing you have to say. Great debate/discussion skills. :V

 

[Aleu]

No one is claiming that it's an appropriate medium. Just that it is one.

 

[Brazen]

Make all the snide remarks you want about how marriage is shit or whatever. I really couldn't care. I still want my rights, and not to have them put up to vote.

Then go get married at one of the churches that marries gay couples, what's the problem? You're not asking for the right to marry, you're asking for the privilege of a convenient tax status.

 

[Term_the_Schmuck]

Yes there are various mediums through which you can "Voice" your opinion. However Violence is not a medium appropriate for getting your point across. Neither is threatening behavior, harassment, bullying, and intimidation.

Well harassment and bullying certainly weren't apart of this man's video. Threatening behavior and intimidation is up to personal interpretation, but most courts would view what he did as no immediate threat to anyone or anything outside of a sign that we're assuming was placed on his property without permission.

That said...I cannot see this as anything other than an intimidation tactic. The guy is choosing to use an object with symbolism attached and engaging in what is a violent act (shooting it). That is intimidationg as far as I am concerned. Since when is that guy's backyard a shooting range? What happens if the dude missed? What else could he have possible hit instead? You want to fire a gun, fire it for it's actual purpose (self defense or hunting) or go to a shooting range. This sure as hell ISN'T a case of someone responsible and respectful about gun ownership but that is another issue in of itself.

You're assuming he thought so far as to make this video out to be a threat that he'll shoot a homosexual if they come by his property. If this sign was placed on his property without his consent, it could read "Free hamburgers at Wendy's" and he still probably could have used it as target practice.

How is he not being a responsible gun owner? He placed the sign in front of a hill to catch the ammunition when it passed through the sign. He wore safety goggles. As far as we can tell he's not in a heavily populated area and is on his own property. Unless there's something within North Carolina law which prohibits the discharge of a weapon on your property, if he's the licensed owner of that shotgun and took basic safety measures to ensure no unintentional harm comes to anyone or anything, then that's hardly a case for calling this man irresponsible or disrespectful towards gun ownership. Seems like a bit of a stretch and trying to paint this guy as worse than what he is which is a bit petty. :V

At the end of the day the guy is an idiot. Hur hur let me get my gun and a video camera and show yall what I think. Great job. So now instead of gaining support you've just turned hundreds away from wanting to hear a single thing you have to say. Great debate/discussion skills. :V

I'm not saying the guy's not an idiot for posting that video, considering he's posting it on You Tube and has drawn such attention that he's committed social suicide because of it.

But recognize that the same rights which allow you to call this guy an idiot or Glitch to make the claim that he has a small dick allows him to shoot at that sign in response to someone placing it on his property and claim marriage is a right between a man and a woman.

 

[Spatel]

Then go get married at one of the churches that marries gay couples, what's the problem? You're not asking for the right to marry, you're asking for the privilege of a convenient tax status.

Brazen, you're not making any arguments.

Most sane people think marriage should not be granted special legal status, that we shouldn't punish couples that don't choose to marry or cannot marry by denying them a long list of rights and exceptions that married couples get to have. That the ultimate goal for the queer movement should be the gradual phasing-out of marriage as a preferred, mandatory institution that everyone is forced to seek.

In the meantime, if we're going to have state-sponsored marriage we should make it fair, shouldn't we?

 

[triage]

it's north carolina...home of nascar...
everything redneck related is legal

i'm not a nascar fan, but it originated in florida, and about 16 of the tracks currently used in the "top tier" series are above the mason dixon line, and, historically, there have been more races held at New York-based circuits than, say, South Carolina.

it's popular in the south as much as it is in the north- despite it being a shittier version of normal touring car circuit racing and that Indycar should really be in its position popularity-wise, Nascar isn't inherently redneck related.

on topic, can we sum this down as "white people"

 

[Rilvor]

on topic, can we sum this down as "white people"

Speaking on fairness, in all fairness this comment should create a shitstorm even though it won't. Double standard day all day every day.

 

[triage]

Speaking on fairness, in all fairness this comment should create a shitstorm even though it won't. Double standard day all day every day.

#blackpeopleprivileges :3

 

[dinosaurdammit]

#blackpeopleprivileges :3

no. just no

 

[triage]

no. just no

i'm not serious

 

[Glitch]

Then go get married at one of the churches that marries gay couples, what's the problem? You're not asking for the right to marry, you're asking for the privilege of a convenient tax status.

No, I want to marry the person I love. Simple enough now isn't it?

 

[Torrijos-sama]

Since when? Because I've seen plenty of people voice their opinions through artistic expression, protests, and other means without having another party present for discourse. Hell, some people have set themselves on fire or defecate on an American flag to demonstrate their convictions to their opinion. There's no rule that voicing or expressing yourself has to be done through a one-on-one discourse.



How do you know this video was meant to intimidate? For all we know, if the sign was placed on his property it's absolutely his right to dispose of it in any means he sees fit. If he chooses to use it as target practice, who are we to say he can't as long as he's abiding by local gun ordinances?



The only way this wasn't responsible is if he stole that sign off of someone else's lawn, because then he'd actually be committing a crime.



I've seen a lot of people make that claim too. In the video he says "near" his property which could mean anything. Was it on his lawn? Was it on someone elses? Was it on public property?

But to me the main issue people are having here is what he did with the sign rather than how he acquired it, so I'm going on the assumption he got it legitimately for the purpose of talking about expression.

If the sign was on his property, or on the sidewalk in front of his property, or on public property near his home, then, if no one claims it, and city ordinances don't protect its placement in public property, then it can become his.

Shooting at a sign placed on/near your property is no different from a Black man shooting or tearing down a burning cross that was deposited on his yard by someone who was taking advantage of their "Freedom of Speech", or painting over graffiti that has been left on some wall near your property, even if the message was tame and not discriminatory.

 

[Lobar]

Shooting at a sign placed on/near your property is no different from a Black man shooting or tearing down a burning cross that was deposited on his yard by someone who was taking advantage of their "Freedom of Speech", or painting over graffiti that has been left on some wall near your property, even if the message was tame and not discriminatory.

It's no different than burning a cross itself. He made a public display of violence against a statement for equality that he can't tolerate.

 

[Roose Hurro]

How is he not being a responsible gun owner? He placed the sign in front of a hill to catch the ammunition when it passed through the sign. He wore safety goggles. As far as we can tell he's not in a heavily populated area and is on his own property. Unless there's something within North Carolina law which prohibits the discharge of a weapon on your property, if he's the licensed owner of that shotgun and took basic safety measures to ensure no unintentional harm comes to anyone or anything, then that's hardly a case for calling this man irresponsible or disrespectful towards gun ownership. Seems like a bit of a stretch and trying to paint this guy as worse than what he is which is a bit petty. :V

He also used a shotgun, which is a short-range weapon... even a .22 Long Rifle (rimfire) can be dangerous within 1.5-2 miles.

 

[Lobar]

Pretty sure it's illegal in just about any city to discharge a firearm for sport within city limits, regardless of effective range or what's behind it.

 

[Roose Hurro]

Brazen, you're not making any arguments.

Most sane people think marriage should not be granted special legal status, that we shouldn't punish couples that don't choose to marry or cannot marry by denying them a long list of rights and exceptions that married couples get to have. That the ultimate goal for the queer movement should be the gradual phasing-out of marriage as a preferred, mandatory institution that everyone is forced to seek.

In the meantime, if we're going to have state-sponsored marriage we should make it fair, shouldn't we?

Thing is, even hetero couples don't need the State's approval to get married... having that GOVERNMENT license only grants you tax bennies and a few other "privaleges". You can be quite happily "married" without a license, gay or straight. In fact, from what I've read, "marriage" itself in on the wane. Why bother taking on the legal obligations of a state license, which gives your partner half of what you own if you separate/divorce? Better to just "marry" by means of moving in with each other and staying loyal. If you do eventually separate, then you don't require the legal tangles of a divorce, and can just move on with your life, alone. Or with a new partner.

No, I want to marry the person I love. Simple enough now isn't it?

Then go and do it, exchange your vows in front of witnesses. That's all it takes to be married. What you want are the legal privaleges granted by a state marriage license.

 

[KioPolaroid]

North Carolina is formed up of a bunch of redneck hicks.
I should know,I live in this hell hole.
I hope god destroys this place before any other.

 

[Term_the_Schmuck]

It's no different than burning a cross itself.

Depends on where you're burning the cross.

If you're placing the cross on someone elses' lawn, you're trespassing. Private Property rights outweigh your First Amendment rights.

Pretty sure it's illegal in just about any city to discharge a firearm for sport within city limits, regardless of effective range or what's behind it.

Incorrect. In rural areas in North Carolina, you can discharge weapons such as a shotgun generally as long as you're 100 yards from roads or dwellings. I don't know where people are getting this "city" business from. I don't know what part of this video constitutes that he's in a heavily populated area, or even something that constitutes a semi-urban environment. Looked more rural to me.

 

[Spatel]

Thing is, even hetero couples don't need the State's approval to get married... having that GOVERNMENT license only grants you tax bennies and a few other "privaleges". You can be quite happily "married" without a license, gay or straight. In fact, from what I've read, "marriage" itself in on the wane. Why bother taking on the legal obligations of a state license, which gives your partner half of what you own if you separate/divorce? Better to just "marry" by means of moving in with each other and staying loyal. If you do eventually separate, then you don't require the legal tangles of a divorce, and can just move on with your life, alone. Or with a new partner.

Yes except if you plan to have kids, it's good to at least get a domestic partnership. Something which will become impossible, even for straight couples, if amendment one passes.

 

[Roose Hurro]

Yes except if you plan to have kids, it's good to at least get a domestic partnership. Something which will become impossible, even for straight couples, if amendment one passes.

Plenty of kids are born out of wedlock... but yes, a domestic partnership would provide some legal bond, so you avoid having the gov potentially burning your ass over something. Me, I'd just like to see the state keep its meathooks out of a private citizen's business. Like marriage and child-rearing.

 

[Glitch]

Then go and do it, exchange your vows in front of witnesses. That's all it takes to be married. What you want are the legal privaleges granted by a state marriage license.

I deserve the same rights as heterosexuals. What did gays ever do to not deserve equality, hmm?

Explain that to me.

 

[Term_the_Schmuck]

I deserve the same rights as heterosexuals. What did gays ever do to not deserve equality, hmm?

Explain that to me.

Just so we're clear now.

You are saying all you really want are the tax and legal benefits, right?

You can be honest with us without the "I want to marry the person I love" sob story.

And technically speaking, no one deserves anything. Heterosexual, homosexual, or whatever.

 

[triage]

Just so we're clear now.

You are saying all you really want are the tax and legal benefits, right?

Really though.

If I can get a tax break for fucking my significant other in the ass provided they are the opposite gender, I might as well be getting a tax break for fucking my significant other in the ass provided they are homosex.

This is a dumb argument to make, but it also, I suppose, highlights how old-fashioned the "institution of marriage" may be these days.

 

[Ad Hoc]

Just so we're clear now.

You are saying all you really want are the tax and legal benefits, right?

You can be honest with us without the "I want to marry the person I love" sob story.

And technically speaking, no one deserves anything. Heterosexual, homosexual, or whatever.

Had I stayed with my ex, eventually we would have needed to get married because he was going into the Navy and the military doesn't help couples stay together at all if they aren't married. Also, in the event that he wound up in critical condition at the hospital, it would have allowed me to see him and have some kind of input on his care (and vice versa). Also, it helps with things like health insurance, child adoption, getting a loan for a home, etc.,

"You just want tax breaks" is kind of insulting.