It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

There oughta be a law!

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Times are tough and everybody is strapped for cash anymore. You would think that people would save their hard earned Federal Reserve Notes for only the necessities but, when people have strange hobbies, it seems that economic frugality goes out the window.


It's 'murderabilia' and, yes, there is a market for serial-killer relics

YOU MIGHT THINK the hair and fingernail clippings stored neatly in Andy Kahan's filing cabinet would have withered to dust, given their biological origins.

Or at least that they'd be burning bright with the fire of eternal damnation, considering their previous owners.

Instead, they sit there, looking as worthless as something swept off the bathroom floor.

But Kahan paid good money for them. Once attached to some of the world's most notorious killers, the clippings are a creepy collectible, part of a "murderabilia" market that has flourished online as the public's passion for all things true-crime has grown.

On sites like murderauction. com and ghoulslikeus.com, shoppers can buy or bid on autographs, artwork, personal effects and other artifacts connected to killers of all kind.

Philly.com

There's also a market for hunting penned in exotic animals.


Is High Fence Hunting a Good Thing for Sportsmen?

Many hunters say they would never go after confined game. They call it "canned hunting" no matter how big the enclosure is and say it threatens the foundations of the sport. But those who pursue game at the estimated 1,000 high-fence operations across the country (there is no national regulatory system, so getting an exact number is impossible), and many who don't, say it's a choice left to the individual. The size of the enclosure, and the type of terrain inside, they feel, determines what is fair chase and what isn't.

The operators of these high-fence hunting ranches say they are simply filling a demand for hunting opportunities in a world where public lands are swamped with hunters, wild big-game animals are taken long before they reach maturity, and complex regulations have killed the heart of the traditional experience. In a society where a lot of hunters are pinched for time, flush with cash, and eager for a very large trophy, such a business can be very successful.

Field and Stream

People will do or sell almost anything anymore to make a quick buck. There are many who would argue that people shouldn't be able to sell murderabilia or hunt penned in animals. Collecting murderabilia may seem sick to many and hunting penned in animals certainly doesn't meet the definition of "real hunting" in my eyes but, I question the move to outlaw such activities.


But critics, including many victims' families, say no one should profit from their pain.

"Like it or not, there's a small group of people out there that idolize serial killers," said Kahan, the Houston victims' advocate who coined the term "murderabilia" and amassed his own collection to aid his crusade against it. "But from my perspective, you shouldn't be able to rob, rape and murder, and then turn around and make a buck off it."

Kahan, who will present a murderabilia workshop Tuesday at the National Organization for Victim Assistance conference in Center City, has worked for two decades to persuade lawmakers to forbid the sale of murderabilia. Eight states, including New Jersey, outlaw such vending, but a federal bill introduced last year went nowhere.

Philly.com


The HSUS Applauds Introduction of Federal Bill to Combat Captive Hunts

The Humane Society of the United States commends U.S. Reps. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., and Brad Sherman, D-Calif., for introducing legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives that cracks down on the inhumane and unsportsmanlike practice of shooting exotic animals penned inside fences. The Sportsmanship in Hunting Act of 2011, H.R. 2210, would prohibit the interstate transport of exotic (non-native) mammals for the purpose of killing them for trophies or entertainment in fenced areas smaller than 1,000 acres

Humane Society

In neither of the cases I outlined above does anybody get defrauded of their money. They know what they are paying for and they agree to shell out their hard earned bucks to satisfy their needs. Some people find their behavior sickening but, is that really such a good reason to outlaw what they are doing? They say hunting penned animals is inhumane but, how is that any different from what we do to our domestic cattle? At least the penned animals were allowed to run around somewhat freely while they did live. Do people really think that buying murderabilia will drive someone to become a serial killer?

The system is clogged up with way too many laws already and there is debate even on just how many laws there are in existence just on the Federal level and when you add in all the State and local ordinances, it becomes difficult for even the most law abiding citizen to step out of their front door without breaking some law.


As Criminal Laws Proliferate, More Are Ensnared

The U.S. Constitution mentions three federal crimes by citizens: treason, piracy and counterfeiting. By the turn of the 20th century, the number of criminal statutes numbered in the dozens. Today, there are an estimated 4,500 crimes in federal statutes, according to a 2008 study by retired Louisiana State University law professor John Baker.

There are also thousands of regulations that carry criminal penalties. Some laws are so complex, scholars debate whether they represent one offense, or scores of offenses.

As federal criminal statutes have ballooned, it has become increasingly easy for Americans to end up on the wrong side of the law. Many of the new federal laws also set a lower bar for conviction than in the past: Prosecutors don't necessarily need to show that the defendant had criminal intent.

WSJ


People wonder how we got to the point we are today where the law limits every move we make and puts people in fear of ending up in jail for even the most innocent of activities.

The simple fact of the matter is; we put ourselves here. Every time we see some awful abuse of the capitalist system taking place, someone making money from some deplorable activity that we turn our noses up to, we go crying to the legislature THERE OUGHTA BE A LAW!

Sure, there should be laws against murder and stealing and cheating people out of their money. We can all agree on that. There are even some valid arguments against prostitution and drug laws to keep down diseases and avoid accidental overdose but, in many cases, I think even these laws go to far. The problem is, there is always another problem out there that need to be solved and somebody who is offended by the way in which somebody is earning their living. There will always be someone out there demanding the government to step in and shut down that with which they disagree.

If the government were to bow to all of these special interest groups, how long do you think it would take before whatever YOU do for a living makes you a criminal in the government's eyes? They are already trying to villainize people who sell fattening foods to children. How long before you start seeing SWAT raids on those ice cream trucks driving around the neighborhoods?

People need to figure out other ways to fight against behavior they find offensive without always getting the government involved. If you don't like the penned in hunts, take some time out of your busy schedule and stand out front of those places in protest and try to shame their customers from using their services. If something bothers you that much, find some other way to fight back!

If we always run to the government to outlaw whatever we don't like, it won't be long before we are all outlaws.


edit on 8/19/11 by FortAnthem because:





posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by FortAnthem
In neither of the cases I outlined above does anybody get defrauded of their money. They know what they are paying for and they agree to shell out their hard earned bucks to satisfy their needs. Some people find their behavior sickening but, is that really such a good reason to outlaw what they are doing? They say hunting penned animals is inhumane but, how is that any different from what we do to our domestic cattle? At least the penned animals were allowed to run around somewhat freely while they did live. Do people really think that buying murderabilia will drive someone to become a serial killer?


First of all let me just say the first star you have on this thread comes from me because I think it is thought and discussion provoking, and that is never a bad thing.

However, I don't agree with you on this. Certainly there are many and more laws that are terrible and unhelpful, but laws protecting animals from being poached or from psychopaths from obtaining the gun thqat killed John Lennon are things that NEED some good laws.

You say why is it wrong to kill these caged animals; after all, we kill cows the same way? To that I say: two wrongs don't make a right, and furthermore not only is the way we treat cows disgusting and immoral, but also dreadfully harmful for the planet, the people consuming the drugged up beef, and to the poor communities of people who live near these MASSIVE, HORRIBLE COW MURDER FACTORIES. If you have ever driven through Hereford, Texas, you will understand what I mean. Some people actually LIVE there.

And yes I certainly do think further fuelling some crazy lunatic with memorabilia from his favorite murders is a GREAT way to get the blood of some NEW murders on our hands.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Whoops, sorry.
edit on 8/19/2011 by DieBravely because: brain damage



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by DieBravely
 


I found some of the more disgusting abuses of capitalism and used them to make my point.

I also believe that there is no place for these markets in a decent society. I just don't believe that we need to always run to the government to solve these problems. If we outlaw the two examples I outlined above, the markets will just move underground. The markets for these goods and services will get more violent and people will end up getting killed in the process.

By allowing the murderabilia market to operate openly, we give criminal investigators another avenue in which to investigate crimes. If some nut uses something they bought from one of those sites, the police can track down the buyer and bring him to justice faster. If the market were outlawed, they would never be able to get the cooperation of the sellers. This would also be a way for the police to create a database of potentially deranged people if they could get their hands on the website's records. If done through the proper search warrant process, I would have no objections to this.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 08:48 PM
link   
I completely understand where you are coming from and I'm only playing devil's advocate to get this discussion started, however you are right, I seized upon the example instead of the actual thread's point. That was not deliberate though, and I didn't realize I had done it until your latest reply.

I am on a public computer and they are giving me the boot now since they close in about 10 minutes, but never fear, I will return and discuss the meat of this thread with you again soon my friend.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 08:54 PM
link   
humane society and animal right activists would knock over your grandmother, kick your daughter out of the way, step on your infant son, run over your wife, jump on a homeless man and bodycheck an orphan to save a mutilated, disease ridden cockroach.

they're so f-uped that they bleed pain when they see a 3 legged dog and would give their life to save it, but they wouldn't give a crumb off their sandwich if they encountered a starving human being with minutes to live.



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 05:12 AM
link   
Yep. When I look at this question from a "morally neutral" standpoint, what I see is that people are gonna do stuff they wanna do. No matter what. Not even in the most rigid of totalitarian governmental systems were people under complete and total control. And when you make something that a lot of people want illegal, all you're doing is creating a brand-new bunch of petty criminals where none had previously existed, as well as ensuring that wealth and power will flow towards people who are genuinely dangerous.

I only want my government to do two things for me. Deliver the mail, and stay outta my life.

Good thread OP.



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tsurugi
Yep. When I look at this question from a "morally neutral" standpoint, what I see is that people are gonna do stuff they wanna do.



That's a good point; all those people who claim that the government has "separation of church and state" have no business asking the state to outlaw something they find morally repulsive. A government that does not recognize religion must remain "morally neutral" in its dealings with its citizens, otherwise, it is making a moral judgement based upon some religious doctrine.

A state that practices religious indifference cannot, by definition, make any moral judgements on the behavior of its citizens. So long as their activities don't harm another citizen, the government has no business calling their activities improper and making them illegal.

One would have to ask; under what set of standards did they determine a certain set of activities to be improper?

If the moral judgment has, in any way, originated from a religious standpoint, the state would be forbidden from making that judgment by the doctrine of "separation of church and state".

Some may try to use the "natural law" argument for moral decisions by the government but, modern day philosophy has pretty much decreed that there are no moral absolutes and circumstances may make even what seems to be the most morally reprehensible behavior to be acceptable if "the end justifies the means".

I personally don't adhere to this interpretation of the 1st amendment but, for those who do, asking the state to condemn activities that they find morally offensive is the height of hypocrisy.


edit on 8/20/11 by FortAnthem because:




new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join