Be a Supporter!

New York's Gun Ban

  • 5,374 Views
  • 284 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
JackPhantasm
JackPhantasm
  • Member since: Sep. 29, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 37
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 16th, 2013 @ 05:08 PM Reply

At 1/16/13 03:34 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Food for thought

If he was white you wouldn't post it.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 16th, 2013 @ 05:20 PM Reply

At 1/16/13 05:08 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: If he was white you wouldn't post it.

Oh jeez.

Look racist prick, it has nothing to do with his skin color. I didn't like the white version we had in the last administration either.

BTW, Obama is white.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 16th, 2013 @ 05:22 PM Reply

At 1/16/13 05:03 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Then why exactly do you need them so badly.

Does someone need a reason to want something? If so, why?

As I mentioned, many (most) people buy them for hunting, sport or collecting purposes.

You gonna go up to a Ferrari collector and say "why do you need that?"

Of course not. Because grilling someone about a hobby is an overall dick move.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 16th, 2013 @ 05:24 PM Reply

At 1/16/13 05:06 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: They don't. It's an ego pump is all. If you take away there guns it's like taking apart of their ego like taking candy from a baby.

No, retard.

It has nothing to do with ego.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 16th, 2013 @ 05:28 PM Reply

At 1/16/13 03:47 PM, Camarohusky wrote: How does this bear on whether or not AWBs are an unessecary infringement?

It is directly related to it being unnecessary. If the guns are not used in crime and not a significant source of gun deaths...why ban them?

Everyone is asking 'why should civilians own these guns'? That's the wrong question, the right question is: 'what reason is there to ban them'? The reality is, there is nothing that makes military clones something that we need to ban.


But a great deal of military ammunition is meant to tumble after hitting a soft target thus creating large and deep wound cavity. Sounds more than harmful enough. Other military ammunition is meant to shatter into shrapnel upon impact with a soft target. Sounds pretty harmful. SO which is worse: mushrooming with shallower depth; tumbling with extreme deoth; or shrapnel? The only real difference in lethality or capacity to harm in these is the distance with which either happens from the barrel to the target.

Tumbling is possible with any bullet. But guess what? A .223/5.56 round (what is used in a AR-15) travels at such a high velocity that the possibility is actually reduced by these firearms. When it comes out of the barrel a .223 is travelling at 3,110 fps. A .44 mag is traveling at 1,282 fps by comparison.


Either way, saying assault weapons are not meant to harm is nothing less than specious. Guns are designed solely to harm flesh. You may be right that in close situations the most crime takes place assault weapons may end up causing less harm, but to imply that any gun is truly safe is just plain false. Guns are meant to be lethal.

I did not say HARM, so please do not re-phrase what I said to put words in my mouth.

What I said is: military small arms are designed to fire rounds that do not make death inevitable. Furthermore, Obama said military weapons are designed to inflict maximum damage...and that's what I'm taking issue at: while they are capable of killing they are designed to minimize the chance of death.

In no one am I saying that they do not harm, nor am I saying that any gun is truly safe. I know guns. I know that even blanks can kill if the circumstances are right.

But what I said stands: military ammo is designed to wound more than they are designed to kill.


3) Rate of fire does not make a gun more deadly; in fact the faster one fires the less probable people will get hurt.
Depends on use and intent, but in the vast majority of case this is correct. Still not sure how this makes AWBs an uneccesary infringement.

Because this is a reason advocates for an AWB claim that this is a reason that makes it necessary. However, it is false. Ergo, since it is false and untrue...it does not makes it necessary.

So without this justification...it adds to the unnecessary column.

You still haven't shown where these firearms need to be treated as a special case.

High Cap mags
All you have done here is shown that Assault weapons don't make that good of crime weapons. Come back and say why that fact has anything to do with an AWB being an unessecary infrigement.

Don't focus on the crime aspect, focus on the infringement aspect.

I am focusing on the infringement aspect by deconstructing the reasons why policy makers and advocates claim that this infringement is necessary.

Ergo...their claims that an AWB infringement is necessary is based upon claims with no foundation or basis in reality. So at this point...there has been no cause shown that makes the policy a necessary good to the public. Nothing supports it as good public policy.

In the end the burden of proof is not on me...it is on anyone who supports these measures to demonstrate why we should pass this law.

And they fall far short of this benchmark.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 16th, 2013 @ 05:36 PM Reply

At 1/16/13 04:16 PM, adrshepard wrote: The bigger problem with his point is that assault rifles fire more powerful rounds which travel at higher speeds. A .223 round is going to cause much more damage than a 9mm or .45 bullet, and there's arguably no practical reason why anyone would need that large a round for self-defense purposes.

Absolutely false! You can hunt deer with a .45LC or .44 rem mag...but you cannot hunt one with a .223 because it is deemed to be an unethical kill because it lacks the killing power of other rounds!

The high rate of speed of a 5.56 makes hollow points less likely to mushroom, plus it delivers less punch. Force equals mass x velocity. What is going to produce more force? A smaller or larger bullet? Simply put a .45 ACP will kill much quicker than .223 or even 7.62x39.

... obviously, but Mason's point is that there aren't any similar arguments that apply to the AR-15 or similar semi-automatic rifles because they simply aren't used in that many crimes and don't have a comparatively larger potential for massacres than other weapons.

And the fact that their bullets are not capable of inflicting the amount of damage gun control nuts claim they can.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 16th, 2013 @ 05:41 PM Reply

At 1/16/13 05:03 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Then why exactly do you need them so badly.

Without getting into ballistics minutae...even though the M-16 round is illegal for hunting in many states because of just how ineffective it is at killing something the size of a deer or human...my AK-47 is actually a good short-range deer rifle. With the right ammo, I can go hunting in the woods or in some of the fields around my house minimizing the chance that I hit something I don't want to in case I miss.

A long time ago I posted an article about a little girl who got hit by a stray hunter's bullet while riding a horse. The vast majority of hunting rifles are more powerful than assault rifle rounds. So using an AK for short-range hunting...is actually a safety thing.

But again...those wanting to ban them have to come up with a justification (or series thereof) for banning them. At this point, their justifications dissolve upon inspection.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
JackPhantasm
JackPhantasm
  • Member since: Sep. 29, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 37
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 16th, 2013 @ 05:55 PM Reply

At 1/16/13 05:22 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
Does someone need a reason to want something? If so, why?

Pretty sure basic psychology says you always want something for a reason.


As I mentioned, many (most) people buy them for hunting, sport or collecting purposes.

You gonna go up to a Ferrari collector and say "why do you need that?"

Yes, I would. Cars are about the only thing I hate more than guns. Wasteful disgusting technology. At least the way we implement.


Of course not. Because grilling someone about a hobby is an overall dick move.

It becomes so when that hobby changes the world I live in.

At 1/16/13 05:41 PM, TheMason wrote:
At 1/16/13 05:03 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Then why exactly do you need them so badly.

But again...those wanting to ban them have to come up with a justification (or series thereof) for banning them. At this point, their justifications dissolve upon inspection.

Prohibition never works. Doesn't change the fact that the world we be a better place without them. The only way we get to that point is through change and evolution in the way we deal with conflicts between each other.

At this point I see no difference with how we do this that separates us from any ancient civliization.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 16th, 2013 @ 06:08 PM Reply

At 1/16/13 05:55 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Pretty sure basic psychology says you always want something for a reason.

And so that means I have to explain it to everyone? Maybe I just like them because I like the way they look. Maybe I think they're good investments. Maybe I intend to blow off a home intruder's head. MY reason is totally irrelevant to you.

It becomes so when that hobby changes the world I live in.

Exactly. Guns don't change shit about your world, nor does a fast car.

adrshepard
adrshepard
  • Member since: Jun. 18, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 16th, 2013 @ 06:32 PM Reply

At 1/16/13 05:36 PM, TheMason wrote: Absolutely false! You can hunt deer with a .45LC or .44 rem mag...but you cannot hunt one with a .223 because it is deemed to be an unethical kill because it lacks the killing power of other rounds!

Not in all states. .223 is perfectly acceptable for deer hunting in lots of places. Sure, its not as strong as extra large pistol rounds or higher calibre rifle rounds, but it still has more stopping power than regular pistol rounds. Besides, how many semi-automatic weapons are there for public sale chambered for rounds larger than .223?

The high rate of speed of a 5.56 makes hollow points less likely to mushroom, plus it delivers less punch. Force equals mass x velocity. What is going to produce more force? A smaller or larger bullet? Simply put a .45 ACP will kill much quicker than .223 or even 7.62x39.

The 45 may be larger, but its not going anywhere near as fast as a rifle round. I'm not big on the nuts and bolts of guns, but I haven't found anything on the internet through a little research that says a standard pistol round has more stopping power than a .223.

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 07
Gamer
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 16th, 2013 @ 06:33 PM Reply

It becomes so when that hobby changes the world I live in.

World didn't age people are always violent.

wildfire4461
wildfire4461
  • Member since: Dec. 27, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 16th, 2013 @ 06:38 PM Reply

Well that dumb prick just guaranteed he won't get reelected. New York is quickly turning into one big pile of shit at the hands of liberal cocksuckers like him.

At 1/15/13 11:32 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: oh I know I have family in NY my uncle just made the remington team! but to own a pistol or even carry you have to see a psych then you have to fill out paper work then submit it, get it then you have to go to a judge place your case why you want it to be approved, then if the permit holder passes away (my uncle for example) my aunt has 30 days to get a permit or else the
state confiscates the guns and the approval process take 60-90 days!

its set up to fail and fuck over legal gun owners in New York. and I can guarantee to you this will be took to the supreme court by the gun lobby (good for them).

The biggest crock of bullshit I've seen in a gun law yet. I'm sure the NRA is already getting a lawsuit or something set up to counter this.


That's right I like guns and ponies. Problem cocksuckers?
Politically correct is anything that leftists believe.Politically incorrect is anything common sense. IMPEACH OBAMA.

BBS Signature
thegarbear14
thegarbear14
  • Member since: Jul. 6, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 16th, 2013 @ 06:41 PM Reply

At 1/16/13 06:38 PM, wildfire4461 wrote:

Scope is working on a lawsuit.... the nra hasn't said or done anything yet....if they ever do.


BBS Signature
RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 16th, 2013 @ 06:57 PM Reply

At 1/16/13 05:03 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Then why exactly do you need them so badly.

I like them. They're an excellent self defense weapon. The concerns about penetration go out the window, they're much more comfortable to use (This is pure opinion and user taste here), and I prefer always having a little extra left in the magazine instead of being stuck in a spot where what I had wasn't enough, and I've never really liked the aesthetics of pistols with magazines longer than the handle. Plus, given the whole modularity of AR-15 weapons, you could easily convert into a through and through hunting rifle (That means make it more deadly than what most currently are). The only people who want to ban assault weapons are either extremely ignorant about firearms and need to pay more attention, are racist and don't like them because they're black and black things scare them, or are going to use it as a stepping stone to a total ban. Now tell me, what exactly is the reasoning behind the justification to ban them?


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 16th, 2013 @ 06:58 PM Reply

At 1/16/13 05:28 PM, TheMason wrote: In the end the burden of proof is not on me...it is on anyone who supports these measures to demonstrate why we should pass this law.

Not nessecarily. Turn your arguments against you. Assault rifles just aren't that good of weapons for self defense. They are too big and don't incapacitate as well. Because they pose no real practical self defense usage they have no real legitimate use and therefore the restriction of them does not infringe.

In conjunction, the design of a hunting rifle looking like a weapon of war has no practical use so therefore the restriction of hunting rifles made to look like weapons of war is not an unessecary infringement.

These arguments is enough to create a prima facie case for why assault weapons being banned is not an unnessecary infringement.

Tell me why it is an infringement, not why the guns are impractical for crime.

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 42
Programmer
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 16th, 2013 @ 07:08 PM Reply

At 1/16/13 06:38 PM, wildfire4461 wrote: The biggest crock of bullshit I've seen in a gun law yet. I'm sure the NRA is already getting a lawsuit or something set up to counter this.

yeah its worse than California my uncle and aunt are considering to move to Jersey (of all places) and can just go across the river to work. New jersey has some pretty liberal (loose) laws which is nice and my aunt and uncle would probably like it, ever since getting their names put in that piece of shit paper with their address and name on it they been stocking up firearms (from out of state of course bringing them in). The NRA should start up a suit and challenge it but New York has been so far gone to the Liberals its not funny.

for more libtard circle jerking taking gun owner rights in New York go here.

thegarbear14
thegarbear14
  • Member since: Jul. 6, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 16th, 2013 @ 07:12 PM Reply

At 1/16/13 06:58 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 1/16/13 05:28 PM, TheMason wrote: In the end the burden of proof is not on me...it is on anyone who supports these measures to demonstrate why we should pass this law.
Not nessecarily. Turn your arguments against you. Assault rifles just aren't that good of weapons for self defense. They are too big and don't incapacitate as well. Because they pose no real practical self defense usage they have no real legitimate use and therefore the restriction of them does not infringe.

In conjunction, the design of a hunting rifle looking like a weapon of war has no practical use so therefore the restriction of hunting rifles made to look like weapons of war is not an unessecary infringement.

These arguments is enough to create a prima facie case for why assault weapons being banned is not an unnessecary infringement.

Tell me why it is an infringement, not why the guns are impractical for crime.

Because they are so widely used, could get them cheap, used incredibly cheap ammunition that almost anyone can afford.
this new bill bans a fuckton of semi autos.

pointless registration or jail is messed up. This law serves no real purpose other than to hassle people exercising a right they have. Does not prevent criminals from getting firearms on the banned list as they still can be stolen or gotten out of state. illegal mags are easily gotten as well. It doesn't affect criminals only law abiding citizens and it's a huge hassle.

There is no reason why semi automatic firearms should be illegal and it does violate your rights to ban them without real reason. It's going to be about as effective as the last assault weapons ban.


BBS Signature
RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 16th, 2013 @ 07:14 PM Reply

At 1/16/13 06:58 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Not nessecarily. Turn your arguments against you. Assault rifles just aren't that good of weapons for self defense. They are too big and don't incapacitate as well. Because they pose no real practical self defense usage they have no real legitimate use and therefore the restriction of them does not infringe.

What. Who told you they aren't good self defense weapons? They're excellent for self-defense. Less penetration, less lethal, and given the nature of having a higher capacity base magazine size, if it does not incapacitate on the first shot, a follow up is simple. Also, although this is user preference, it is easier to get ready to go.

In conjunction, the design of a hunting rifle looking like a weapon of war has no practical use so therefore the restriction of hunting rifles made to look like weapons of war is not an unessecary infringement.

Features being banned for no legitimate reason is an infringement.

These arguments is enough to create a prima facie case for why assault weapons being banned is not an unnessecary infringement.

Tell me why it is an infringement, not why the guns are impractical for crime.

It is infringement when it arbitrarily bans the most popular weapon in America that functions exactly like other firearms, except it has aesthetics and features that give the appearance of something the military would use.


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
theburningliberal
theburningliberal
  • Member since: Jul. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 16th, 2013 @ 10:10 PM Reply

At 1/16/13 01:06 AM, LemonCrush wrote:
At 1/16/13 12:19 AM, Warforger wrote: It should if it's designed to kill people.
Oh...but military drones and bombs are a-ok, right?

BTW, guns aren't designed to kill people

Okay, guns are designed to launch a small projectile at high velocity with the full knowledge that such a projectile will cause significant damage to the target. Gun manufacturers make no attempt to prevent human flesh from being the target of such a projectile.

Where?

The Second Amendment... Awell 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.

It's funny, because there's a big part in there saying that the government shall not infringe or impose on it's people.

Actually, there isn't. Such phraseology is incredibly vague in a legal sense. While you can read across the Constitution and come up with this premise, you can also find a similar premise that supports government imposition on rights when it becomes necessary.

Why cite the Constitution if you don't believe in it? You can't talk about the Constitution as law, and at the same time support a gun ban

Let's drop the misleading terminology, shall we? Neither the NY law that was just passed nor the proposals offered by Obama represent a total gun ban. They put forth conditions and qualifications not only on who can own and purchase firearms, but the types of guns that are commercially available for sale.

Now, let's turn to the body empowered by the US Constitution to be the arbiter of constitutional questions in D.C. v. Heller with some quotes from their decision in that case (which overturned a handgun ban in D.C.):

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those âEUoein common use at the time.âEU 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of âEUoedangerous and unusual weapons.âEU

Please read and understand modern application of the Constitution before you accuse others of not doing the same. kthxbai

JackPhantasm
JackPhantasm
  • Member since: Sep. 29, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 37
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 16th, 2013 @ 10:13 PM Reply

At 1/16/13 06:57 PM, RacistBassist wrote:
At 1/16/13 05:03 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Then why exactly do you need them so badly.
don't like them because they're black and black things scare them, or are going to use it as a stepping stone to a total ban. Now tell me, what exactly is the reasoning behind the justification to ban them?

There isn't, prohibition doesn't work. But I am completely justified in finding a violent world disgusting. Where perfectly sane people have justified reasons for having a firearm, isn't that in itself a problem. Shouldn't you hate that, shouldn't you think that's terribly fucked up.

At 1/16/13 06:08 PM, LemonCrush wrote: MY reason is totally irrelevant to you.

If I'm asking you point blank it is relevant to me.

It becomes so when that hobby changes the world I live in.
Exactly. Guns don't change shit about your world, nor does a fast car.

That's just completely untrue and you know it. Explain how modern war doesn't change our world. Try.

Explain how highways, and destruction of resources so that we can have THINGS doesn't change my world.

RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 16th, 2013 @ 10:54 PM Reply

At 1/16/13 10:13 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: There isn't, prohibition doesn't work. But I am completely justified in finding a violent world disgusting. Where perfectly sane people have justified reasons for having a firearm, isn't that in itself a problem. Shouldn't you hate that, shouldn't you think that's terribly fucked up.

There are things that go bump in the night. We need to have the ability to bump back. It's a fucked up world. We can only slowly change that. The disarming of the innocent is not going to help that.


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
919CDS
919CDS
  • Member since: May. 20, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Audiophile
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 16th, 2013 @ 11:03 PM Reply

At 1/16/13 12:19 AM, Warforger wrote:
At 1/16/13 12:09 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Maybe. Then again, what a company makes, and what people can buy, should not be dictated by the government.
It should if it's designed to kill people.

Says who?
The Constitution.......

you know what the constitution also says, THOU SHALL NOT INFRINGE ON THESE RIGHTS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evEg1VNfX3o&list=LLQB9kdFCa3W 71p8dRe0YDGA
this video should enlighten you


I always come with a good plan, when that dont work I switch out to the hood plan

,.l.. >_< ..l.,

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 16th, 2013 @ 11:21 PM Reply

At 1/16/13 10:10 PM, theburningliberal wrote: Okay, guns are designed to launch a small projectile at high velocity with the full knowledge that such a projectile will cause significant damage to the target. Gun manufacturers make no attempt to prevent human flesh from being the target of such a projectile.

Exactly. A TARGET. Which could be a deer. Or a piece of paper. Target =/= human

The Second Amendment... Awell 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.

Good. So you prove my point. The constitution clearly states that, in order to ensure peace and security, you are allowed to own guns. And furthermore, there's nothing the government can do about it.

Actually, there isn't. Such phraseology is incredibly vague in a legal sense. While you can read across the Constitution and come up with this premise, you can also find a similar premise that supports government imposition on rights when it becomes necessary.

The Bill of Rights, if we didn't live in a near-dictatorship, are supposed to be untouchable...or...inalienable.

Let's drop the misleading terminology, shall we? Neither the NY law that was just passed nor the proposals offered by Obama represent a total gun ban. They put forth conditions and qualifications not only on who can own and purchase firearms, but the types of guns that are commercially available for sale.

The NY ban bans nearly every type of gun on the market. Good luck trying to kill a deer with a 1911, btw.

Now, let's turn to the body empowered by the US Constitution to be the arbiter of constitutional questions in D.C. v. Heller with some quotes from their decision in that case (which overturned a handgun ban in D.C.):

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those âEUoein common use at the time.âEU 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of âEUoedangerous and unusual weapons.âEU
Please read and understand modern application of the Constitution before you accuse others of not doing the same. kthxbai

I don't give a flying fuck about liberal interpretation of the law.

919CDS
919CDS
  • Member since: May. 20, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Audiophile
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 16th, 2013 @ 11:30 PM Reply

in ww2 a man named "Simo Hayha" killed over 540 russians with a bolt action rilfe using only iron sights, it's not the gun that kills people, its the person, if someones gonna kill people they'll kill them no matter what, gun or not


I always come with a good plan, when that dont work I switch out to the hood plan

,.l.. >_< ..l.,

BBS Signature
theburningliberal
theburningliberal
  • Member since: Jul. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 16th, 2013 @ 11:39 PM Reply

At 1/16/13 11:21 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
At 1/16/13 10:10 PM, theburningliberal wrote: Okay, guns are designed to launch a small projectile at high velocity with the full knowledge that such a projectile will cause significant damage to the target. Gun manufacturers make no attempt to prevent human flesh from being the target of such a projectile.
Exactly. A TARGET. Which could be a deer. Or a piece of paper. Target =/= human

First, you don't address my last statement in that paragraph (Gun manufacturers make no attempt to prevent human flesh from being the target of such a projectile). Second, while not all targets are human, all victims of gun violence were targeted by the user of a gun, and you make no attempt to address that.

The Second Amendment... Awell 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.
Good. So you prove my point. The constitution clearly states that, in order to ensure peace and security, you are allowed to own guns. And furthermore, there's nothing the government can do about it.

Actually, there is. Guns have been regulated in this country since day one, and likely always will be. Get over it.

Actually, there isn't. Such phraseology is incredibly vague in a legal sense. While you can read across the Constitution and come up with this premise, you can also find a similar premise that supports government imposition on rights when it becomes necessary.
The Bill of Rights, if we didn't live in a near-dictatorship, are supposed to be untouchable...or...inalienable.

They generally are. It's the same reason why a few select types of speech are unprotected and why we still have the death penalty. And if you really think we live in a near-dictatorship, you need to retake your high school civics class.

Let's drop the misleading terminology, shall we? Neither the NY law that was just passed nor the proposals offered by Obama represent a total gun ban. They put forth conditions and qualifications not only on who can own and purchase firearms, but the types of guns that are commercially available for sale.
The NY ban bans nearly every type of gun on the market. Good luck trying to kill a deer with a 1911, btw.

Let's clarify - the NY ban doesn't ban the gun, it bans the sale of many models of guns, including the model used in the Newtown shooting. If you have them, fine, just register it (in the same vein that you register your car) and you can use it freely for lawful purposes.

Now, let's turn to the body empowered by the US Constitution to be the arbiter of constitutional questions in D.C. v. Heller with some quotes from their decision in that case (which overturned a handgun ban in D.C.):

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those Ãf¢EUoein common use at the time.Ãf¢EU 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of Ãf¢EUoedangerous and unusual weapons.Ãf¢EU
Please read and understand modern application of the Constitution before you accuse others of not doing the same. kthxbai
I don't give a flying fuck about liberal interpretation of the law.

Except... it was Scalia who wrote that opinion... I don't know if you know who he is, but he is the religious right's appointee to the Supreme Court, and has consistently voted in favor of less gun control, even though, as he says, the right is "not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." So... reasonable restrictions are okay, and, to be honest, I don't see anything unreasonable in the NY law, especially since the bulk it doesn't even actually deal with guns, it is focused more on current and potential gun owners.

JRob
JRob
  • Member since: Nov. 10, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Musician
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 16th, 2013 @ 11:48 PM Reply

Just what part of "shall not be infringed" do you people not understand? There is no room for interpretation - it doesn't say "may sometimes be infringed" or "shall not be infringed, except for certain guns" - it's an absolute statement.


"Verpum do, ergo sum." -Descartes
Only the best
My interview with Asandir

BBS Signature
JackPhantasm
JackPhantasm
  • Member since: Sep. 29, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 37
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 16th, 2013 @ 11:50 PM Reply

At 1/16/13 10:54 PM, RacistBassist wrote: We can only slowly change that. The disarming of the innocent is not going to help that.

How.

919CDS
919CDS
  • Member since: May. 20, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Audiophile
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 16th, 2013 @ 11:52 PM Reply

At 1/16/13 11:48 PM, theJRob wrote: Just what part of "shall not be infringed" do you people not understand? There is no room for interpretation - it doesn't say "may sometimes be infringed" or "shall not be infringed, except for certain guns" - it's an absolute statement.

EXACTLLY, what they are doing is unconstitutional, it would be like saying "you have freedom of religion, well you cant be muslim because those terroist, and scientology is pretty dangerous too" our government is fucked up


I always come with a good plan, when that dont work I switch out to the hood plan

,.l.. >_< ..l.,

BBS Signature
Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 07
Gamer
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 16th, 2013 @ 11:53 PM Reply

IF the founding fathers only intended for us to use the weapons of the time. They never wanted us to ever be able to stop the government. That doesn't quite add up..

919CDS
919CDS
  • Member since: May. 20, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Audiophile
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 16th, 2013 @ 11:56 PM Reply

At 1/16/13 11:53 PM, Ceratisa wrote: IF the founding fathers only intended for us to use the weapons of the time. They never wanted us to ever be able to stop the government. That doesn't quite add up..

founding fathers actually wanted us to have whatever weapons the millitary has


I always come with a good plan, when that dont work I switch out to the hood plan

,.l.. >_< ..l.,

BBS Signature