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.
When the gun totin dummies in the United States start to give a schytte about the OTHER 9 Amendments called the Bill of Rights, then maybe New Yorkers will notice Amendment 2.
When Texans and the other trailer state residents stop trying to combine RELIGION and STATE, when they stop trying to brainwash kids with "creationism" in violation of AMENDMENT ONE, when they start caring that AMENDMENT FIVE says you cannot torture to get a confession even if some doof in the White House says you CAN, then maybe New Yorkers will notice Amendment 2.
When the Federal governemt is compelled to notice AMENDMENT 4 granting rights to privacy in one's effects and papers, the universal wiretapping, e-mail snooping, suitcase searches will stop because the Constitution FORBIDS THEM, then maybe New Yorkers will notice Amendment 2.
When every federal crime is tossed out, especially the unconstitutional federal drug laws, when all federal laws compelling the states to act in a certain way is tossed out because they violate AMENDMENT 10, then maybe New Yorkers will give a schytte about the screamers who want to carry concealed handguns into theaters.
When Presidents are deprived of the right to start WARS in direct contravention of the Constiotution...and the next predisent who tries it is imprisoned, then maybe we will worry about the rights of gun owners.
When gun toters support the rights of women to choose whether or not they want to proceed with a pregnancy, THEN perhaps we wiill consider their Second Amendment rights.
Those in suppport of "gun-totin" think there is only one Amendment in the Bill of Rights. When they concern themselves about how the REST of the Constitution is being trampled pehaps THEN they can criticize those who don't give a schytte about rights under Amendment 2.
People who care about the Constitution have seen it ripped to shreds over the last decades...gun control is but a minute pecadillo when seen in proper context.
A more forceful rebuttal of the gun-toting rednecks I have never seen. Thanks, that was a masterpiece.
Hmm.. A device to protect against speeders.. How about a rear-mounted flamethrower or a tire spike ejector? Put that tailgating bastard in his place. I can't see why such a device could be outlawed, given the second amendment. Arms are arms, after all. However, even if they make you safer from attack, it's still a stretch to call them safety devices.
This raises another point, though: The second amendment only specifies arms, it says nothing about guns. Given that they could not foresee what future form arms might take, it's either open to modern interpretation by the courts, or we are entitled to carry anything from a halberd to an rpg.
Personally, I'd feel pretty safe with a nice, sharp 24" blade openly displayed on my hip, perhaps doused in neurotoxins for extra stopping power. Who will stand up with me and demand this inalienable right?
Furthermore, while it might be true that some people will always find a way to get guns illegally, we've certainly made it easy as pie in the Western hemisphere. It reminds me of the manufacture of oxycontin- the quantities produced and marketed are such that it's pretty obvious that a lot of merchandise is destined for the wrong hands.
Last edited by Hieronymus Bosch; 01-10-2012 at 11:38 PM..
So you live in constant fear? Well you can try to connect gun laws to Hitler, but what about the countries that have strict gun laws and no Hitler has formed there? I recall an Aussie commenting that mentioned this...or are you saying we should be worried of an Aussie uprise?
do you live in fear if you have fire insurance on your home? do you live in fear if you have auto insurance or an umbrella policy in case you are sued? i never needed either in 60 years but i have it.
call it what you want but meeting a threat with equal force is just another insurance. some my need it in their lifetime, some may not.
anyway this thread is just beating a dead horse and boring me. c-ya.
I see carrying my gun as no different than wearing my seatbelt. I don't drive around in total fear that I'm going to get into a crash, but I take reasonable measures to ensure I'm prepared for it.
Honestly, I didn't carry regularly until the recent pharmacy incident in LI. When I thought about that fiancee sitting in his car wondering why the love of his life was taking so long, I decided I was carrying from now on. Call it fear, call it whatever you want, but I'm not going to be that guy if there's anything I can do about it.
Personally, I'd feel pretty safe with a nice, sharp 24" blade openly displayed on my hip, perhaps doused in neurotoxins for extra stopping power.
You'd likely cut your thigh accidentally and quickly die, but WOW would that give something to the ER staff at Mt. Sinai to talk about. "Paging Dr. House!"
do you live in fear if you have fire insurance on your home? do you live in fear if you have auto insurance or an umbrella policy in case you are sued? i never needed either in 60 years but i have it.
call it what you want but meeting a threat with equal force is just another insurance. some my need it in their lifetime, some may not.
anyway this thread is just beating a dead horse and boring me. c-ya.
Fire insurance doesn't protect your house from burning down, and you are right this beating a dead horse because you are arguing for convenience over safety and that is never good.
NYC residents have accepted the fact that they are being oppressed due to terror threats. Its quite sad.
I myself find it outragous that a man is prohibited from owning a gun at home in the event he has to protect his family against intruders, burglers, murderers, etc.
scenario: A man breaks into my home to harm me and my family. In turn grab a gun and shoot him to protect us. I beat the shooting charge but face 3 1/2yrs for the illegal gun posession. ridiculous!
I myself find it outragous that a man is prohibited from owning a gun at home in the event he has to protect his family against intruders, burglers, murderers, etc.
NYC's premise permits are not hard to get at all. VERY FAR from prohibited.
NYC's premise permits are not hard to get at all. VERY FAR from prohibited.
Yeah, but there is no Castle Doctrine in NY. Meaning, you can't kill an intruder, you must first "retreat". Retreat in your own home... doesn't sound like the land of the free to me.
Wanting to protect yourself and living in NYC is like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.
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.
