U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Thanksgiving Day!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Jersey
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-19-2017, 09:06 AM
 
1,749 posts, read 1,148,848 times
Reputation: 1401

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by rons1 View Post
This is the 2nd amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Why is it that many people can't read? There is no federal right for an individual to carry a gun. A well regulated Militia would be the national guard or state police in today's terms.

You can't cut out the restricting part of the law and make it apply in all cases.
If the law said "in self defense, a person has the right to injure another' that doesn't give 'a person the right to injure another' in the general sense.

That said, I'm happy there are highly restrictive gun laws in the dense areas of NYC, NJ, MA, etc. Worldwide most countries restrict gun laws and murders tend to decrease. A gun isn't the only way to kill/hurt someone, but it's one of the easiest; and if you don't trust other's from acting safe and rationally, what makes you think you'll be safer when they have firepower (even if you also have firepower). Running away from a knife is alot easier than running away from a gun. killing/injuring 10 people with a knife is incredibly difficult, but it happens with a gun all the time.

States with looser gun laws in this country are not any safer statistically than the liberal areas of the country.

Also, why are you okay with restricting gun ownership on criminals, or mentally unstable people? Why have you ignored 'well regulated militia' but added 'except criminals and categories i don't like'
The Supreme Court has already ruled that the 2nd Amendment is indeed an individual right unrelated to service in the national guard or state police. Otherwise it would have read the "right of the national guard and state police" instead of "the people". All of the other rights are indeed individual rights and refer to the people. Why would the 2nd Amendment be any different? Maybe it's you who can not read or at the very least have not studied the issue very well. Or maybe your interpretations supercede Supreme Court decisions?

You are correct in one respect as there are no federal rights to anything. They are "inalienable rights granted by our creator". Meaning that they can not be rescinded by any form of government. The Constitution and Bill of Rights is the law of the land who's purpose is to protect individual civil liberties from majority rule and governmental abuse. The intended reason for the 2nd Amendment in the first place. The reason why we fought and won our independence from Great Britain. All public officials are sworn to uphold the Constitution and Bill of Rights "so help them God". Whether they agree with it or not.

"States with looser gun laws in this country are not any safer statistically than the liberal areas of the country". This has no relevance when it comes to individual civil liberties.

As I've stated earlier, we already have enough laws that address the criminal and negligent use of firearms. Along with laws that address every type of criminal behavior imaginable. Criminals will always have access to all types of weapons just as they do drugs. The black market will never cease to exist. What makes you so sure that another law will make any difference?

The rest of your comments regarding criminals being allowed to possess firearms, the right to injure someone in self defense and trusting other's from acting safe and rationally make absolutely no sense at all. I have no idea what you are talking about?

There are plenty of other ways to commit mass murder without using a firearm. Home made bombs and vehicles for one. Remember the Happyland fire? All that took was gasoline and a match.

Last edited by Ex New Yorker; 06-19-2017 at 09:14 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-19-2017, 09:34 AM
 
225 posts, read 108,199 times
Reputation: 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex New Yorker View Post
The Supreme Court has already ruled that the 2nd Amendment is indeed an individual right unrelated to service in the national guard or state police. Otherwise it would have read the "right of the national guard and state police" instead of "the people". All of the other rights are indeed individual rights and refer to the people. Why would the 2nd Amendment be any different? Maybe it's you who can not read or at the very least have not studied the issue very well. Or maybe your interpretations supercede Supreme Court decisions?

You are correct in one respect as there are no federal rights to anything. They are "inalienable rights granted by our creator". Meaning that they can not be rescinded by any form of government. The Constitution and Bill of Rights is the law of the land who's purpose is to protect individual civil liberties from majority rule and governmental abuse. The intended reason for the 2nd Amendment in the first place. The reason why we fought and won our independence from Great Britain. All public officials are sworn to uphold the Constitution and Bill of Rights "so help them God". Whether they agree with it or not.

"States with looser gun laws in this country are not any safer statistically than the liberal areas of the country". This has no relevance when it comes to individual civil liberties.

As I've stated earlier, we already have enough laws that address the criminal and negligent use of firearms. Along with laws that address every type of criminal behavior imaginable. Criminals will always have access to all types of weapons just as they do drugs. The black market will never cease to exist. What makes you so sure that another law will make any difference?

The rest of your comments regarding criminals being allowed to possess firearms, the right to injure someone in self defense and trusting other's from acting safe and rationally make absolutely no sense at all. I have no idea what you are talking about?

There are plenty of other ways to commit mass murder without using a firearm. Home made bombs and vehicles for one. Remember the Happyland fire? All that took was gasoline and a match.
The Supreme Court has also already ruled it's constitutional for each state to regulate the purchase, possession, and use of firearms as they see fit. So why are we having this debate?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2017, 12:15 PM
 
10,756 posts, read 8,113,785 times
Reputation: 13494
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex New Yorker View Post
Obviously you do indeed have this inordinate fear of law abiding people being allowed to legally carry their firearms for self defense while out and about in public. Otherwise you wouldn't have any problems with it. Period.

You probably have more of a chance of being struck by lightning or getting hit by a car than being shot by someone who is lawfully carrying a handgun in public. Besides I've never stated that using a gun should be the proper response to minor and or property crimes. Your just putting words in my mouth, just as you are accusing me of doing to you. Your tone too is very defensive and for what?

A gun can only be used as a last resort if your life or that of another innocent person is in imminent danger. At least that's how the law sees it. Even where I am in gun friendly Arizona. To do so otherwise and you will be charged with murder as it should be. Minor and or property crimes are not punishable by death.

Carrying a gun for personal self defense is indeed a valid and specific purpose. The ability to defend one's life from a violent criminal attack is certainly more valid than hunting or target shooting. As the old cliche goes: "When seconds count the police are only minutes away".

As rare as violent crime may be and contrary to your opinion anyone, anywhere and at any time can fall victim to a violent crime even in your own safe little haven. My aunt at 80 years old once had the crap beat out of her as she was walking home from my uncle's funeral in what she had always assumed was her safe little haven. House fires are rare too, but does that mean you should not have a fire extinguisher and smoke detectors? Or wear a seat belt while driving or a life preserver while boating?

Whether you see a point in open or concealed carry is irrelevant. Many people do and they have every valid reason for doing so. They are just as valid as yours if not more so. Besides who appointed you as arbiter of what people should or should not be allowed to do? Especially when they are not in violation of or are breaking any laws. Whether I choose to legally carry a gun or not is really none of your business. It's my choice to make and not yours. That's where we differ as I am not telling or suggesting what you should or should not do. If that's being defensive, well tough.

Yes you are entitled to your opinions, just as I am mine. I tried to present a sound rational argument supporting my positions as opposed to yours. You're only argument is: "Yes, I said I don't get it. I don't get it. Period." That's all you've got. If my opinions make you feel like an idiot, well than so be it. That was not my intention. Too bad you take this all too personally.
I am not afraid of guns or law abiding gun owners. Your rambling at me, twice now, is pointless.

I am not taking anything personally. The tone of YOUR posts is all anyone needs to see here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2017, 12:21 PM
 
19,359 posts, read 18,503,827 times
Reputation: 23430
Because New York and New Jersey totally...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2017, 01:21 PM
 
1,749 posts, read 1,148,848 times
Reputation: 1401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig-D View Post
The Supreme Court has also already ruled it's constitutional for each state to regulate the purchase, possession, and use of firearms as they see fit. So why are we having this debate?
That may be true but they can not outright ban the civilian possession of firearms which include those that are in "common use". "Common use" is written right there in the Heller and McDonald decision that confirmed that the 2nd Amendment is indeed an individual right and not a collective one related to service in a state/federal militia. I'm familiar with and have read the entire decision.

Some states such as the one I live in have their own constitutional provisions regarding the bearing of arms that are more specific than the federal one. Which leave no mistake for mis-interpretation:
Quote:
"The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men." Sec. 26. Bearing of Arms, State of Arizona.
So much for the "well regulated militia clause" at least in my home state. Other states have similar provisions. Some do not.

Why are we having this debate? For as long as I can remember gun control has always been the subject of intense debate from both sides and probably always will be. It's not too hard to figure that out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2017, 01:22 PM
 
1,749 posts, read 1,148,848 times
Reputation: 1401
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415 View Post
I am not afraid of guns or law abiding gun owners. Your rambling at me, twice now, is pointless.

I am not taking anything personally. The tone of YOUR posts is all anyone needs to see here.
Indeed it is pointless. There's no sense arguing with ignorance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2017, 01:54 PM
 
19,359 posts, read 18,503,827 times
Reputation: 23430
I've done my part. I've sent up bottle rockets from a place I rented in NJ. Bought them in PA. The neighbor called the police. The officer lectured me for at least 20 minutes. Terrorism, ISIS, Homeland Security, crossing state lines. Seriously? They were little ones that topped at about 30 feet. I guess there was nothing happening in that town.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2017, 02:22 PM
 
229 posts, read 119,055 times
Reputation: 137
You could just try. Go to club and shoot yourself with your own gun (by accident in the leg)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2017, 02:43 PM
 
19,359 posts, read 18,503,827 times
Reputation: 23430
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawnj1215 View Post
You could just try. Go to club and shoot yourself with your own gun (by accident in the leg)
Are you responding to a post?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2017, 04:32 PM
 
10,756 posts, read 8,113,785 times
Reputation: 13494
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex New Yorker View Post
Indeed it is pointless. There's no sense arguing with ignorance.
Lol dude go argue gun control elsewhere. This is the NJ forum, not P&OC. There are plenty of hardcore people who argue both sides elsewhere. This is not the place to argue gun control, even if I wanted to do so. Which I don't. I am familiar with all sides of the argument. It is useless to argue with you anyway when you have a preconceived notion about me that I have told you twice is not true, yet you still want to believe it. You have a bias here and it won't be possible to have a fair, intelligent, and polite debate with you anyway. You've already made that clear. Stick with the AZ forum or bring yourself to P&OC with the type of stuff you've been saying.

You have brought up so much BS that I haven't said or even insinuated I think or believe. You're just looking to debate gun control right now and it's not the place.

Bet you won't believe this - I tend to vote Republican, at all levels, so I don't vote for gun control. You are trying to argue with the wrong person (and telling me that I have no right to do this with you or your rights, and I have no right to tell YOU what YOU can and can't do with your guns just because I personally don't like it... well, I'm not doing that anyway; my votes don't go against you so chill out). You have simply taken serious issue with my personal opinion which is just lame.

Last edited by JerseyGirl415; 06-19-2017 at 04:47 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Jersey

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top