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.
"Obviously the amendment does not apply to arms that can not be hand carried--It's to keep and 'bear' so it doesn't apply to cannons. But I suppose there are hand held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided."-- "The 2nd Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."--- Antonin Scalia (Heller vs DC) www.law.cornell.edu/suplt
Pretty much covers semi auto rifles, handguns and high capacity magazines. They always come back to the same stupid argument:
Quote:
Does the "all" include all "arms?" Military grade weapons? Nukes? Drones? Where is the line drawn?
As I've pointed out before, reading comprehension is not "Opin_Yunated's" forte. Notice how he/she added their own words to the 2nd Amendment. (all?!) It is obvious we are just arguing with ignorance. He/she actually thinks that a district court judge "Skretny" has the authority over the SCOTUS decision. Unfortunately this will have to be fought again. Any judge anywhere can rule anything even if it is blatantly unconstitutional, same for legislatures. This is one of the biggest problems we face today, there are too many lawyers in politics. They write laws and make decisions that in the end only benefit the bottom line of the trial lawyers who I might add are a core constituency of the Democratic Party. We just have to be thankful that "Opin_Yunated" and those of their ilk will probably remain in New York, after all that's where he/she belongs. I'm out of there and thankfully you will be too. And all of their "progressive" BS will be nothing more than a bad dream. I have to admit though it is great fun arguing with them. Oh, by the way, Thank You for your service!
Last edited by Ex New Yorker; 11-11-2014 at 07:53 PM..
God won't save New York... we're one of the least religious states out there.
Well no wonder he won't save it. What did you expect? Maybe that's why it's such a terrible place to live. Oh, I get it now there actually is a hell. And you're living in it! Whether you know it or not you've just made my day.
Pretty much covers semi auto rifles, handguns and high capacity magazines. They always come back to the same stupid argument:
As I've pointed out before, reading comprehension is not "Opin_Yunated's" forte. Notice how he/she added their own words to the 2nd Amendment. (all?!) It is obvious we are just arguing with ignorance. He/she actually thinks that a district court judge "Skretny" has the authority over the SCOTUS decision. Unfortunately this will have to be fought again. Any judge anywhere can rule anything even if it is blatantly unconstitutional, same for legislatures. This is one of the biggest problems we face today, there are too many lawyers in politics. They write laws and make decisions that in the end only benefit the bottom line of the trial lawyers who I might add are a core constituency of the Democratic Party. We just have to be thankful that "Opin_Yunated" and those of their ilk will probably remain in New York, after all that's where he/she belongs. I'm out of there and thankfully you will be too. And all of their "progressive" BS will be nothing more than a bad dream. I have to admit though it is great fun arguing with them. Oh, by the way, Thank You for your service!
This entire post a prime example of:
Ad hominem: Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument.
The 2nd Amendment is open to interpretation. It is not as cut and dry as "we can all run around with whatever armament we want." The SAFE Act isn't preventing anyone from bearing arms; it simply bans certain classifications of firearms. As killing technology evolves, the 2nd Amendment becomes even more obsolete.
Truthfully, we should be embarassed as a country for not amending our Constitution (the darn thing is 200 years old) to be more modern, as they do in other developed countries. Rational Americans have no issue with people owning personal firearms, but would rather not see gun fanatics walking around with military grade automatic weapons strapped to their backs in public spaces.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex New Yorker
Opin_Yunated:
Well no wonder he won't save it. What did you expect? Maybe that's why it's such a terrible place to live. Oh, I get it now there actually is a hell. And you're living in it! Whether you know it or not you've just made my day.
Cuomos argument was that no one "needs 10 bullets to shoot a deer". Its not about shooting deer. Most people hunt with bolt action rifles so its a completely idiotic argument to make.
Many will argue that the govt has no business telling you how many bullets you can keep in your firearm, or whats in your safe as you purchased it legally. I agree.
People fail to see it from another point of view.There was a story in the news recently about a family who waitined over a hour for police to repond to a 911 call. A neighbor came by and apprehended the kids trying to get into the house.Now, while people in the more highly populated areas might not have to wait long for police response, if you live in a very rural area, thats a completely different story. Im a really decent shot, but I wouldnt want to face 3 criminals, possibly armed, coming into my house with 7 bullets.
The founding fathers gave alot of warnings about out of control govt. They used pretty strong words, like tyranny. Being able to protect yourself from govt, and abuse of power is another eason why the 2nd amendment was created. Part of the problem is that most "liberals" have way too much faith, and are dependent on govt. Most "gun nut" types completely distrust govt.
Theres also the scumbag tactic in all this... using dead children to forward your own personal agenda. A AR wasnt used in the Connecticut shooting, yet they used that tragedy as a platform to makes the changes to gun laws they wanted to.
I wonder if Cuomos guards have more than 10 bullets in their firearms. Id bet everything I own that I know the answer to that question.
The stupid thing in all this is that criminals dont obey laws, and all these laws do is prevent law abiding citizens from protecting themselves and their families. Meanwhile the real problem, mental illness, is lazily addressed. Every one of these recent shooting involve someone who was mentall ill. No one wants someone with mental problems getting their hands on guns.
BTW, Opinated, its not just the law that the issue, but how it was passed. If you dont have a problem with the WAY Cuomo did this, your basically stating that your a Facist. We have due process for passing laws, which Cuomo and his cronnies completely circumvented.
Cuomo has stating very clearly that "confiscation is a option". Its not just about guns. Are you willing to give up your rights, guaranted to us so easily?? If you dont care about guns, fine. What happens when its something you do care about.
Last edited by Scorpio1969; 11-12-2014 at 10:18 AM..
You still can own a firearm.. it just can't be high-capacity magazine.
This is incorrect. Andys Law makes many rifles, legally purchased, illegal.
The law, as written also gave people a one year time limit to get rid of, sell or otherwise, merchandise (magazines and add on features) that they bought, again, legally.
Opin_yunated is full of just that: worthless opinions. Notice the complete ignore when confronted with verified facts regarding the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment via the Supreme Court of the United States.
The Common Core textbook interpretation of the Bill of Rights is all these fools need to get through life:
1. Say anything you want unless if offends liberals. Religion is bad, except Islam.
2. Guns are bad unless carried by cops or security guards for our lords. You're stupid and backwards for thinking otherwise.
3. Soldiers suck. They shouldn't be able to have their own houses, much less ours. FYI, most people don't even know this amendment exists so we'll just throw "All gays RAWK!" in here.
4. No cop can ever touch minorities, ever.
5. If you say you don't want to talk, the ACLU will sue for you and make you rich, we promise.
Cuomos argument was that no one "needs 10 bullets to shoot a deer". Its not about shooting deer. Most people hunt with bolt action rifles so its a completely idiotic argument to make.
Many will argue that the govt has no business telling you how many bullets you can keep in your firearm, or whats in your safe as you purchased it legally. I agree.
People fail to see it from another point of view.There was a story in the news recently about a family who waitined over a hour for police to repond to a 911 call. A neighbor came by and apprehended the kids trying to get into the house.Now, while people in the more highly populated areas might not have to wait long for police response, if you live in a very rural area, thats a completely different story. Im a really decent shot, but I wouldnt want to face 3 criminals, possibly armed, coming into my house with 7 bullets.
Theres also the scumbag tactic in all this... using dead children to forward your own personal agenda. A AR wasnt used in the Connecticut shooting, yet they used that tragedy as a platform to makes the changes to gun laws they wanted to.
I wonder if Cuomos guards have more than 10 bullets in their firearms. Id bet everything I own that I know the answer to that question.
The stupid thing in all this is that criminals dont obey laws, and all these laws do is prevent law abiding citizens from protecting themselves and their families. Meanwhile the real problem, mental illness, is lazily addressed. Every one of these recent shooting involve someone who was mentall ill. No one wants someone with mental problems getting their hands on guns.
BTW, Opinated, its not just the law that the issue, but how it was passed. If you dont have a problem with the WAY Cuomo did this, your basically stating that your a Facist. We have due process for passing laws, which Cuomo and his cronnies completely circumvented.
Look I don't disagree with anything you are saying, but that wasn't my argument. I agree it was passed through in a poor manner. I've acknowledged in this thread several times I have no desire to support any means of "de-arming" law-abiding citizens. My argument was strictly that the SAFE Act does not infringe on the right to bear arms. It places some restrictions on weapon classifications.
We are in agreement about the manner in which it was passed. However, the OP is about if we support the law or not. I support sensible gun control. For the most part, this law qualifies as such.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scorpio1969
The founding fathers gave alot of warnings about out of control govt. They used pretty strong words, like tyranny. Being able to protect yourself from govt, and abuse of power is another eason why the 2nd amendment was created. Part of the problem is that most "liberals" have way too much faith, and are dependent on govt. Most "gun nut" types completely distrust govt.
Cuomo has stating very clearly that "confiscation is a option". Its not just about guns. Are you willing to give up your rights, guaranted to us so easily?? If you dont care about guns, fine. What happens when its something you do care about.
Aside from the blatant stereotyping, this qualifies as:
Slippery slope: The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear
Opin_yunated is full of just that: worthless opinions. Notice the complete ignore when confronted with verified facts regarding the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment via the Supreme Court of the United States.
The Common Core textbook interpretation of the Bill of Rights is all these fools need to get through life:
1. Say anything you want unless if offends liberals. Religion is bad, except Islam.
2. Guns are bad unless carried by cops or security guards for our lords. You're stupid and backwards for thinking otherwise.
3. Soldiers suck. They shouldn't be able to have their own houses, much less ours. FYI, most people don't even know this amendment exists so we'll just throw "All gays RAWK!" in here.
4. No cop can ever touch minorities, ever.
5. If you say you don't want to talk, the ACLU will sue for you and make you rich, we promise.
so on and so on (with pictures of course)...
I don't even know how what this post has to do with the topic, but it is a collection of ad hominems and strawman arguments.
For interested parties, the 9th Circuit denied California's appeal of Peruta earlier today. In summary, this means that every law abiding citizen of the states represented by the 9th Circuit are now entitled to CCW permits. In direct opposition, the 2nd Circuit (us), has repeatedly found that citizens must show "cause" to be issued a permit. In NY and NJ, that means direct threats to life (and even that justification is routinely denied). I fully expect the SCOTUS to take a carry case sooner rather than later now that a clear disconnect exists between multiple Circuits (the 5th, 7th and DC circuits have also issued conflicting decisions).
...And I don't want to understand liberals. That would be a worthless exercise in stupidity. Waste of time.
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.
