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.
Why on earth would someone like me fight for the "right" of my fellow NYC dwellers to own guns? So I can force the overwhelming majority of them who abhor guns to carry one?
Amazing show of ignorance about what's being talked about.
The discussion on Constitutionality is pointless. None of you are Supreme Court Justices, and a few of you don't even seem to know what the Constitution was written to secure. Hint: it's not individual rights.
The last thing some people want is a discussion on Constitutionality.
There was an error in my statement, it should say all parties, not both....but then again, we basically have a two party system with a handful of little parties.
As in my guess on your party, I would assume you fell under the Republican umbrella whether it be Libritarian, Constintutionalist, Tea Party, or whatever...but honestly my response was more towards your assumption that it is only Liberals do "name calling," unless you don't believe your original statement.
Unless you often times say "it is typical conservative right that can't argue with facts on the issue." If you refer to both sides of politics doing the name calling, then I will consider myself incorrect, but if you think it is only the "libs" that name call, then you are horribly mistaken.
Actually I'm registered Independent. You are right to some extent. I was registered as a Republican until I became completely disalusioned with both major parties.
It has been my experience that the first to lob the name calling comes from the left leaning, although this whole thread started out with the OP slinging a bunch of name calling. Never a good way to start any discussion! But like you said, it comes from all sides.
Considering what site we're on I would have to say that the left out weighs the right better than 5 to 1 and if you look at the posts, ignoring the instigator OP, the first and foremost to heave the insults came from the NYC side of the discussion. So in this case I'd have to say my statement was fairly accurate.
The name calling seems to come out when one side runs out of fuel for a logical argument, becomes tired of the argument or emotion over takes the discussion.
I try not to get dragged into the name calling as it serves no useful purpose. But I also don't consider saying someone is 'Liberal' as calling them a name any more than someone calling me 'conservative'. It is a matter of the views brought to the table.
So if someone was treated and classified as mentally insane, and on his way home from the doctor decided to swing by the gun shop to pick up a gun, then went to the local square to shoot a bunch of people, you would be like "well it was his constitutional right to own a gun regardless of his mental health." Personally I want to make sure people are qualified to own a gun or need to have a "gun license" where you have to take a training to show that you understand gun safety.
It doesn't bother me if everyone wanted to have a gun, I just think it should be treated as a responsibility to have proper gun safety rather than act like "I'm an Amer'kin! I like to shoot my gun lik' a cowboy!!"
Maaann! You had a good argument going right up to the point you threw out the insult at the end. But, I've come to expect that.
I think if you took the time to talk to a couple of gun owners you would find that we are responsible. We do not take the responsibility of ownership and carry lightly. Unfortunately, you've chosen to take the argument we offer and draw a conclusion that we are not responsible.
In the real world, if someone is under the treatment for a mental incapacitation they would be ineligible for gun ownership. (You might want to research the Instant Check System. it's used in every state.)
If the established system is used and the purchase is not from illegal sources AND the medical system does it's due diligence in reporting the disqualifying mental defect of the subject, his/her attemt to purchase a gun would be halted.
As it exists in states that require a license to carry a weapon, part of the requirement is to take a training course. The courses I am familiar with include the legalities of carry and a proficiency test with your weapon. Beyond that many gun owners take additional training to stay proficient with their guns.
In your hypothetical, while it is your insane persons Constitutional right to own a fire arm, there are systems in place to prevent those that are deemed dangerous/criminal from obtaining a gun.
If ANY one shot up a bunch of people, my first thought would not be of the Constitutionality of the shooters gun ownership. My first thought would be with the victims.
Redistricting should be a non partisan thing that is controlled purely by population numbers rather than the political party in power....but that is a different topic.
Not going to argue that. And you're right... for another post.
So if someone was treated and classified as mentally insane, and on his way home from the doctor decided to swing by the gun shop to pick up a gun, then went to the local square to shoot a bunch of people, you would be like "well it was his constitutional right to own a gun regardless of his mental health." Personally I want to make sure people are qualified to own a gun or need to have a "gun license" where you have to take a training to show that you understand gun safety.
It doesn't bother me if everyone wanted to have a gun, I just think it should be treated as a responsibility to have proper gun safety rather than act like "I'm an Amer'kin! I like to shoot my gun lik' a cowboy!!"
Well maybe if more people began owning firearms and carrying openly or concealed if you have a CCW permit (which is what most states have) mentally insane individuals would know to behave themselves for fear of risking death or serious injury from their fellow citizens. You do have a right to protect yourself from that insane person with a gun, which is why you have a right to keep and bear arms. TO PROTECT YOURSELF. An armed society is a safer society. It doesnt take a genious to figure that out. Vermont has no restrictions on their laws pertaining to guns and as scary as the state looks it is one of the safest states in the country. And no I dont want to hear the lame excuse well thats Vermont.
Lets forget about the insane person going to a square to start a neighborhood massacre how about having our unstable friend go to a police precient to play cowboys and indians and LETS SEE WHATS HAPPENS TO OUR INSANE BUDDY WITH A GUN .
Law enforcement will light him up like a Christmas tree. WHY BECAUSE ALL OF THE POLICE ARE CARRYING. Police are regular citizens like you and me why should it be Ok for them to be able to respond with the use of a firearm when they encounter someone who is a threat .
Most states have waiting periods so they cant buy a gun and take it with them anywhere right away.
Criminals and insane people target gun free zones where they know people are unarmed. criminals would be reluctant to enter into any zone where they feel someone may be armed its why they dont enter areas where there are police presence.
But in any case, discussing the Constitution is never pointless. I'm always willing to learn more facts.
The only pertinent fact is that neither of us has any say in what is Constitutional and what isn't. I have plenty of opinions on laws that flaunt the interstate commerce clause, but have never seen one of my opinions get a law overturned.
SCOTUS has not dismantled the local laws of NYC as of this post, so any declaration of unConstitutionality by you is speculation.
While the recent Chicago ruling affirmed the Heller decision's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, SCOTUS made clear that localities can restrict gun ownership in the commonly referred to as "common sense" manner.
DC's decision did not apply to states/localities because of DC's legal status.
Chicago's does not apply to most localities (including NYC), because there existed no provision for handgun ownership. It was completely banned.
NYC allows handgun ownership, not even severely restricting it. Only the carrying of handguns is severely restricted. Too much in my opinion, but apparently not un-Constitutionally, because the NRA has not put up a test case against the City, which they would have done in a heart beat if they thought they had a chance of winning the case.
So you are telling me I can kill someone with words? I personally want background checks on people who want to be gun owners because the last thing I wanna see is someone not fit to have a gun using their gun as their form of freedom of speech.
If someone got out of prison tomorrow and wanted to buy a gun on "his way home" would you let him? So when you mention "we the people," we the people would like to make sure that only those who seem fit to carry should be allowed to.
As far as killing someone with words... yell FIRE in a crowded club or tell 6 burly New York Giants fans their tems in a bunch of pu$$ies and see what words can do.
I would suggest for future discussion ammo you look into the laws governing gun ownership in your own state. You might be surprised how the back ground check you suggest is already done.
You really don't know what it takes to own a gun in New York do you? The federal government requires every state to back ground check everyone that want to buy a gun. You need to look into it so you have a better understanding for the discussion.
The discussion on Constitutionality is pointless. None of you are Supreme Court Justices, and a few of you don't even seem to know what the Constitution was written to secure. Hint: it's not individual rights.
The preamble to the US Constitution:"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
However before the Constitution would be ratified several parties insisted on adding the Bill of Rights or the first Ten Amendments. The Bill of Rights dealt with several individual rights issues: specifically the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th amendments.
Maaann! You had a good argument going right up to the point you threw out the insult at the end. But, I've come to expect that.
I think if you took the time to talk to a couple of gun owners you would find that we are responsible. We do not take the responsibility of ownership and carry lightly. Unfortunately, you've chosen to take the argument we offer and draw a conclusion that we are not responsible.
In the real world, if someone is under the treatment for a mental incapacitation they would be ineligible for gun ownership. (You might want to research the Instant Check System. it's used in every state.)
If the established system is used and the purchase is not from illegal sources AND the medical system does it's due diligence in reporting the disqualifying mental defect of the subject, his/her attemt to purchase a gun would be halted.
As it exists in states that require a license to carry a weapon, part of the requirement is to take a training course. The courses I am familiar with include the legalities of carry and a proficiency test with your weapon. Beyond that many gun owners take additional training to stay proficient with their guns.
In your hypothetical, while it is your insane persons Constitutional right to own a fire arm, there are systems in place to prevent those that are deemed dangerous/criminal from obtaining a gun.
If ANY one shot up a bunch of people, my first thought would not be of the Constitutionality of the shooters gun ownership. My first thought would be with the victims.
I am sorry you saw the last line as an insult when it wasn't something directed to anyone other than trying to state that it is more important to have educated people who have taken the time to learn gun safety laws before owning a gun, than it would be to stand behind it being a "god given" right to owning a gun, which I guess was more of a reference to the OP more than anything.
I have no problem with anyone wants to own a gun, but I don't want just any idiot to be running around with a gun they just bought.
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.
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.
What you are making absolutely no sense
.
.
you look into the laws governing gun ownership in your own state. You might be surprised how the back ground check you suggest is already done.
