U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York
 [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)
View Poll Results: NY Residents: Do You Support Cuomo's Safe Act?
Yes 5 26.32%
No 14 73.68%
Voters: 19. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-16-2014, 04:14 PM
 
Location: Staten Island, NY
8,626 posts, read 7,055,545 times
Reputation: 8034

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex New Yorker View Post
Airborneguy:

I'll second that. But you have to understand we are arguing with ignorance. I think the best thing for us to do is not respond to he/she at all. I've come to the conclusion that he/she just isn't worth our time.
Especially when the poll is quite lopsided in our favor anyway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-16-2014, 04:35 PM
 
3,252 posts, read 1,856,038 times
Reputation: 2418
Airborneguy:
Indeed it is! Wish I could vote in the poll but I'm not a resident, I can only express my opinion. It is obvious where I stand on the issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2014, 09:17 AM
 
7,846 posts, read 5,272,814 times
Reputation: 4025
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airborneguy View Post
At the risk of you typing "ad hominem" yet again, I made so such argument. You quite possibly are the most annoying person I've ever encountered online. I'm sure you were a treat prior to learning the "internet logic" catch phrases.
Why? Because I'm holding your arguments accountable?

If you want to engage in a rational discussion about how the SAFE Act does or does not infringe on your constitutional rights (judges ruled it doesn't), we can happily have that conversation. If you want to resort to name calling, insults, and off tangent rants about liberals, you just prove there you don't have a valid argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex New Yorker View Post
Airborneguy:

I'll second that. But you have to understand we are arguing with ignorance. I think the best thing for us to do is not respond to he/she at all. I've come to the conclusion that he/she just isn't worth our time.
And here we go again...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Airborneguy View Post
Especially when the poll is quite lopsided in our favor anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex New Yorker View Post
Airborneguy:
Indeed it is! Wish I could vote in the poll but I'm not a resident, I can only express my opinion. It is obvious where I stand on the issue.
Polls are opinion, sure. Polls don't even have to be logical. I asked the two of you to cite the text of the SAFE Act that is a violation of the 2nd Amendment. All you have provided is character insults and conservative outrage. Outrage is okay.. but it is hardly logical. Where is your proof?

Yes, I'm going to continue to point out your logical fallacies.

Bandwagon
Appealing to popularity as an attempted form of validation.

Most NY residents are outraged over the SAFE Act but simply can't come up with a valid logical reason why.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2014, 09:50 AM
 
Location: Staten Island, NY
8,626 posts, read 7,055,545 times
Reputation: 8034
Our logic will never line up because we are diametrically opposed on this issue. Every single word in the Safe Act is an infringement of my rights, because all gun laws are. You will always disagree with that, so what exactly do you believe you are accomplishing by continuously throwing out debating textbook definitions of logic construction? Close to 100% of your posts have been internet argument catch phrases and misplaced definitions of logical fallacies. Are you an internet debate professor?

Furthermore, for someone who throws out so many accusations regarding the lack of substance in arguments of others, you've yet to acknowledge the existence of Heller and McDonald, two very substantive pieces of evidence which were presented to you in the very beginning of this thread. Your ability to ignore what has been presented does not make it cease to exist.

If you want to truly win the internet (I figured I'd throw that one out before you do), get back to me when you've read those decisions. Then, you can present an argument against the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, rather than simply railing against the debate tactics of myself and ex ny'er while leaning on the interim decision of a single judge covering the western district of the State of NY. I'll check in, but until you review what has been previously posted, this is my last post on the subject. I am not going to sit here arguing debate tactics with someone who refuses to acknowledge that they've been ignoring the opposition's evidence all along.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2014, 11:10 AM
 
7,846 posts, read 5,272,814 times
Reputation: 4025
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airborneguy View Post
Our logic will never line up because we are diametrically opposed on this issue. Every single word in the Safe Act is an infringement of my rights, because all gun laws are. You will always disagree with that, so what exactly do you believe you are accomplishing by continuously throwing out debating textbook definitions of logic construction? Close to 100% of your posts have been internet argument catch phrases and misplaced definitions of logical fallacies. Are you an internet debate professor?
Because you're simply wrong.

The ruling is already out on gun legislations. As long as you aren't prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm for personal use, there is not infringement on your rights. The burden of proof is on you.

"Every word" just proves you have no argument other than your own prejudice against the law. If there is text in there to validate your claim, please show me. All it takes is reading the law. Clearly you can find some evidence, right?

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2014, 02:03 PM
 
137 posts, read 173,630 times
Reputation: 141
^ The law clearly makes many firearms illegal. That means, youre "prohibited from owning" them. If you do own them, youre required BY LAW turn them in or sale them out of state. Failing to do so makes you a felon.




There's no point arguing it anymore.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2014, 07:16 PM
 
3,252 posts, read 1,856,038 times
Reputation: 2418
Scorpio1969:
Quote:
There's no point arguing it anymore.
Indeed you are correct. You can't argue with this idiot. I refuse to anymore.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2014, 01:46 PM
 
7,846 posts, read 5,272,814 times
Reputation: 4025
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scorpio1969 View Post
^ The law clearly makes many firearms illegal. That means, youre "prohibited from owning" them. If you do own them, youre required BY LAW turn them in or sale them out of state. Failing to do so makes you a felon.

There's no point arguing it anymore.
"Many" =/= firearms are illegal.

As such, my initial point was confirmed... the SAFE Act does not prohibit people from owning firearms for personal use.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex New Yorker View Post
Scorpio1969:

Indeed you are correct. You can't argue with this idiot. I refuse to anymore.
You refuse to make a post devoid of insults. Clearly you have a more reasonable argument somewhere? Shurg.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2014, 10:11 PM
 
Location: Virginia
274 posts, read 192,600 times
Reputation: 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated View Post
"Many" =/= firearms are illegal.

As such, my initial point was confirmed... the SAFE Act does not prohibit people from owning firearms for personal use.




You refuse to make a post devoid of insults. Clearly you have a more reasonable argument somewhere? Shurg.


Opin_Yunated,

You seem to want to be a Champion of "the facts" as you might say which is ironic given the screen name you chose. It is your self appraisal that has led you to conclude you are opinionated and maybe you should reflect upon this.

Now lets address some of your concerns... Just because a law is interpreted as conforming to the Constitution does not in any way suggest that it is not limiting or the interpretation is not flawed. If this were so there would be no need for Lawyers or Appellate Courts. This is a smarmy, cutesy attempt to avoid honesty on your part.

A good example of what you are doing would be say you owned a Business and pat yourself on the back for giving your employees Health Insurance which is an HMO rather than give them the option to choose either an HMO or PPO. Now technically you can claim you provide health benefits but in reality they do not get to choose what is universally considered the "best" option or perhaps even an option that addresses their needs. Sound familiar?

While the NY Safe Act may have been found to be "Constitutional" it does in fact "water down" the Second Amendment and puts those who live in NY State at a decided disadvantage should the time come they need a firearm to defend themselves.

I was born in NY State Binghamton/Johnson City/Endicott area. My family had firearms, many in fact. My Grandfather, Father, Uncles, Neighbors had Shotguns, Rifles, even pellet Guns. Few had handguns. Yet no mass shootings occurred. No workplace shootings occurred. All this was during a time when people had gun racks in their trucks and carried a rifle or shotgun to many places now prohibited. There were no home invasions or car jackings. Yet mass shootings and workplace shootings have been a more recent occurrence in spite of all the extraordinary legislation to ensure it cannot happen.

The NY Governor and his Legislature would like nothing better than to pass an edict which would completely prohibit the sale, transport, or ownership of firearms in the State. Given this would be unconstitutional he did the next best thing and effectively neutered the intent and effect of the 2nd Amendment to law abiding citizens.

It is a fact that an armed community is victimized less than an unarmed one and this is not random or by chance. Want to know what criminals think about victimizing someone who is armed? Google search what people in Prison say is their biggest fear. Watch the large number of YouTube Videos which show what happens when a Violent Criminal is confronted by an armed Citizen. They cannot get away fast enough. You feel confident the Police can protect you fine that is a choice you are free to make as it is another's choice to stack the odds in their favor and decide should they be targeted they will not be a helpless victim. When seconds count the Police are only minutes away.

Those who are against legal ownership of Firearms feel this way because they are afraid of Firearms. They do not trust themselves and so cannot reconcile the fact that it is not that difficult to handle a Gun safely and responsibly just as is done thousands of times a day throughout the Country. Last I heard they still entrust teenagers who join the Military not much older than 17 or 18 with fully automatic weapons and grenades. Know any 17 or 18 year olds? If you do then I bet this terrifies you. People cross the street by themselves. They make big scary financial decisions by themselves. Heck they even manage to cook dinner around an open flame without taking out a half a block.

I cannot give you points or respect for "hiding" behind the fact that the NY Safe Act jeopardizes the Citizens of New York with a response like, "A Judge has found it has passed the test of Constitutionality". You don't like Guns. We hear you. However, your rights end were the next Guys begins and that is the way the Constitution was written. It is disingenuous for you to claim that the NY Safe Act does not hinder Gun ownership. In fact that is what it was designed to do.

Just so we are clear. We understand you are afraid. However, your fears as illogical as they are should not allow the Governor of New York or the State Legislature to write, pass, amend legislation which effectively mutes a Constitutional Amendment. This is a Country whose culture values individual liberties and personal responsibility since its inception. You have nothing to fear from law abiding Gun owners heck one day they may dare to interject on your behalf or that of someone you Love and save them from great bodily harm or death. The people you need to concern yourself with are those that care nothing about the law and personal responsibility and feel entitled to an income and health insurance and protection from having their feelings hurt or told no.

Last edited by canesfan33068; 12-27-2014 at 11:38 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 York
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:36 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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, 33, 34, 35 - Top