Be a Supporter!

New York's Gun Ban

  • 5,921 Views
  • 284 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 17th, 2013 @ 12:05 AM Reply

At 1/16/13 11:56 PM, 919CDS wrote:
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 well understand that. But right now people are pulling crap and I'm trying approach it from another angle.
My angle, as I said, why would the founding fathers include that, if they wanted us to only have weapons that were sure to become out dated and useless?

JRob
JRob
  • Member since: Nov. 10, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Musician
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 17th, 2013 @ 12:14 AM Reply

At 1/16/13 11:30 PM, 919CDS wrote: 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

HOLY MOTHERFUCKING SHITBALLS, I just looked him up - he's the king of badasses. You also forgot to mention that he killed another 200 with a 9mm submachine gun. It's a good thing the dumbasses who carry out these mass shootings can't shoot as well as this dude.


6:31 PM - 平沢 唯: apparently theres an autism club on NG
6:31 PM - PandAlma: autsim club ? Seriously ?
6:31 PM - PandAlma: That may explain a lot

BBS Signature
919CDS
919CDS
  • Member since: May. 20, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Audiophile
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 17th, 2013 @ 12:38 AM Reply

At 1/16/13 05:06 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:
At 1/16/13 05:03 PM, JackPhantasm wrote:
At 1/16/13 01:07 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
At 1/16/13 08:09 AM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote: Clearly they were made for gardening and writing! /sarcasm
Depends on the gun and how it's used. Private gun owners don't really use their guns for anytihng more than shooting targets or hunting.
Then why exactly do you need them so badly.
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.

we should take away sports cars too right? you dont need it, they go too fast, cars should be made to only go 70 mph, theres no need to go faster

it's not really a NEED to have a gun, well actually it is, you might not ever have to use it but you never know when a crack head might try to kill you just to make a few bucks, IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME, also it is in our rights to have it


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

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

BBS Signature
919CDS
919CDS
  • Member since: May. 20, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Audiophile
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 17th, 2013 @ 12:41 AM Reply

At 1/17/13 12:14 AM, theJRob wrote:
At 1/16/13 11:30 PM, 919CDS wrote:
HOLY MOTHERFUCKING SHITBALLS, I just looked him up - he's the king of badasses. You also forgot to mention that he killed another 200 with a 9mm submachine gun. It's a good thing the dumbasses who carry out these mass shootings can't shoot as well as this dude.

yea he's pretty amazing, he was called "the white death" because how he would just hide in the snow then BAM, also he was shot in the face, that's why his face is all crazy looking like that, he's prettty lucky


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

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

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. 17th, 2013 @ 01:03 AM Reply

At 1/16/13 11:21 PM, LemonCrush wrote: I don't give a flying fuck about liberal interpretation of the law.

Reading into the plain text of the Second Amendment the right to own assault weapons IS a liberal interpretation of the law.

A strict interpretation would not read that in.

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 17th, 2013 @ 01:15 AM Reply

At 1/17/13 01:03 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 1/16/13 11:21 PM, LemonCrush wrote: I don't give a flying fuck about liberal interpretation of the law.
Reading into the plain text of the Second Amendment the right to own assault weapons IS a liberal interpretation of the law.

A strict interpretation would not read that in.

assault weapons is a recently invented term. But other then that, the law was purposefully worded loosely because the founding fathers knew that weapons of the time changed. If they had wanted to be restrictive in what kind of arms they could have. Instead they went out of their way to point out that the government shall not infringe. You need to look at the intent.

theburningliberal
theburningliberal
  • Member since: Jul. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 17th, 2013 @ 01:18 AM Reply

At 1/16/13 11:52 PM, 919CDS wrote:
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.

The phrase "well-regulated" also appears in reference to militias, and Supreme Court reading of the second Amendment not only denies parity between military and civilian guns (which is why a civilian can't go to the local gun store and pick up an M4 or something), but takes the phrase "well-regulated" and extends it to all gun laws on the book. As long as gun laws pass the test of constitutional muster (usually strict scrutiny with 2nd Amendment rights), it is constitutional. This usually means that there needs to be a significant and compelling state interest in regulating these weapons, but guns can, in fact, be regulated by the government.

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

Freedom of religion is a bad example. Freedom of speech is a better example - you can say anything you want, up to a certain point. There are a few categories of speech that are not protected because it serves the interests of the country and the citizens better to deny protection than it would to allow protection. From where I stand, your argument concerning gun control legislation is similar to saying that we should put libel, slander and obscenity under First Amendment protection, consequences be damned.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 17th, 2013 @ 01:18 AM Reply

At 1/17/13 01:15 AM, Ceratisa wrote: You need to look at the intent.

Did they intend for the people to have cannons? Mortars? Grenades?

They clearly intended a limit to what the people would have. Assault weapons is very much pushing that limit.

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 17th, 2013 @ 01:48 AM Reply

At 1/17/13 01:18 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 1/17/13 01:15 AM, Ceratisa wrote: You need to look at the intent.
Did they intend for the people to have cannons? Mortars? Grenades?

They clearly intended a limit to what the people would have. Assault weapons is very much pushing that limit.

A semi automatic rifle that is only banned based on looks is what the founding fathers of america sought to control? Who is reaching here?

Do you really believe the founders of this country so short sighted that they wouldn't be precise when they need to be?
Cause at various points in the document they are very precise.

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 17th, 2013 @ 01:50 AM Reply

Actually burning freedom of speech is a terrible example. Because guns are guns, purposefully harmful speech considerably different then stating differing views.

Guns on the other hand are still guns.

RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 17th, 2013 @ 02:00 AM Reply

At 1/17/13 01:18 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Did they intend for the people to have cannons? Mortars? Grenades?

Fun little tidbit, cannons actually were allowed back in the day. Same with early grenades. Don't know about mortars though. Not sure on when those came into history

They clearly intended a limit to what the people would have. Assault weapons is very much pushing that limit.

No, assault weapons are not. You are now at this point being purposefully ignorant to what assault weapons actually are. It's the equivalent of a paint job and a spoiler on a Honda to make it look more like a race car. That does not make it a race car or no longer a Honda.


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 43
Programmer
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 17th, 2013 @ 02:09 AM Reply

At 1/17/13 01:18 AM, theburningliberal wrote: The phrase "well-regulated" also appears in reference to militias, and Supreme Court reading of the second Amendment not only denies parity between military and civilian guns (which is why a civilian can't go to the local gun store and pick up an M4 or something), but takes the phrase "well-regulated" and extends it to all gun laws on the book. As long as gun laws pass the test of constitutional muster (usually strict scrutiny with 2nd Amendment rights), it is constitutional. This usually means that there needs to be a significant and compelling state interest in regulating these weapons, but guns can, in fact, be regulated by the government.

right go to Minnesota, North Dakota and Texas I could buy a M4 easily. and the Supreme court also ruled that the right to bear arms The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

and the fact that "military style weapons" are far less lethal than the average hunting rifle. and the fact that they are scape goating legal gun owners for political gain in the name of "curbing gun violence" is wrong. When Social issues are the causes of violence (poverty, economy, education ETC) but you just want to blame it on something

just look at the 94 AWB ban it didn't stop school shootings and the fact that democrats never talked about these school shootings during the Federal Assault weapons ban

1995: Blackville-Hilda High School shooting
1995: Richland High School shooting
1996: Frontier Middle School shooting
1996: Hamilton High School shooting
1996: Mid-Penninsula High School shooting
1996: San Diego State University shooting
1996: Hetzel Union Building shooting
1997: Bethel Regional High School shooting
1997: Pearl High School shooting
1997: Heath High School shooting
1998: Westside Middle School shooting
1998: Parker Middle School dance shooting
1998: Thurston High School shooting
1999: Columbine High School massacre
1999: Heritage High School shooting
1999: Fort Gibson Middle School shooting

and 9 more in 00s before the ban ended.

REAL PROGRESSIVE!

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 17th, 2013 @ 04:58 AM Reply

At 1/16/13 11:39 PM, theburningliberal wrote: 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.

Because it isn't a gun's fault. A gun is an inanimate object.

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

No, there's isn't, and no they haven't

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.

Just this past year we had a guy thrown in jail because he made an anti-Muslim video. The government now requires you, by law, to give money to their corporate pals. The government currently has the power to arrest you without trial.

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.

Almost EVERY model of gun, save for most revolvers and 1911's. Any gun with a 10 round mag. Which is almost everything.

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

Like I said, liberal

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 17th, 2013 @ 09:59 AM Reply

At 1/17/13 04:58 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Because it isn't a gun's fault. A gun is an inanimate object.

A dangerous inanimate object knowingly put in the hands of dangrous people.

Just this past year we had a guy thrown in jail because he made an anti-Muslim video. The government now requires you, by law, to give money to their corporate pals. The government currently has the power to arrest you without trial.

No, no, and no. You know nothing about criminal procedure.

Almost EVERY model of gun, save for most revolvers and 1911's. Any gun with a 10 round mag. Which is almost everything.

Revolvers and bolt actions are Arms, are they not? So as long as you have access to them your right to bear Arms is not infringed.

Like I said, liberal

Ha. Take as much as you know about law and government (hint: NOTHING) and that value is about as liberal as Scalia is.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 17th, 2013 @ 10:02 AM Reply

Revolvers are till arms. Bolt action rifles are still arms. Guns with 7 rounds or less per magazine are still arms.

There is no lawful need for a high round magazine. There is no lawful need for a gun the looks like a military gun.

I am still waiting to see exactly how this is an unessecary infringement when the right to bear arms still exists and the arms being restricted have no lawful purpose.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 17th, 2013 @ 10:26 AM Reply

At 1/17/13 01:03 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 1/16/13 11:21 PM, LemonCrush wrote: I don't give a flying fuck about liberal interpretation of the law.
Reading into the plain text of the Second Amendment the right to own assault weapons IS a liberal interpretation of the law.

A strict interpretation would not read that in.

How so? Especially when given the historical context of when the amendment was written the notion that it would not cover assault rifles and other military arms would be revisionist.


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. 17th, 2013 @ 11:08 AM Reply

At 1/16/13 06:32 PM, adrshepard wrote:
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?

1) Yes...in some states .223 is legal for use in deer hunting. However, even in these cases it is frowned upon. While there are hunters who claim it works fine. However, from what I've experienced talking with fellow hunters here in Mo and on gun BBSs online...it is not the norm and is a minority opinion.

2) There are actually many semi-auto weapons for sale in caliburs larger than .223. I've seen semi-auto .308, then there is the AK-47 round, and even a few 6mm sized caliburs that have been specifically created to make the AR-15 platform more suitable for hunting.


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.

The speed is actually what makes the .223 a weaker round for self-defense and stopping & killing power.

A .223 is only a 55 to 69 grain bullet. A .45 (doesn't matter if it is .45ACP, .45LC or .45GAR) on the other hand goes up to 250 grains with the smallest bullet for a .45 is 225 grains. (Grains are how bullets are weighed.) So the .45, at its smallest, is over 3x larger than the smallest .223.

Add to this the bullet's shape. Even with a hollow point bullet, the .223 tapers down to a sharp point whereas the .45 is flat. This means that the shape of the bullet makes the .223 a much better penetrator. Again this sounds like it would make the .223 the better round. But it does not. That it is the better penetrator means that it does significantly less damage.

The speed that the bullet is traveling, the weight and diameter, and shape all contribute to a bullet that over-penetrates and does little damage to the body. At the speed a .223 is traveling a hollow point or soft-lead core bullet will not have much of a chance of expanding. It goes in and out leaving being a very small wound channel.

On the other hand, a .45 since it is traveling slow has a greater chance of doing one of two things:
A) A hollow-point has a greater chance of expanding.
B) More of a chance of not leaving the body.

Even if it does leave the body, a .45 will lead a larger wound channel doing more damage. Furthermore, even if its not an expanding bullet like a HP or JHP....45 tends to make a larger exit wound than entry wound. Whereas the .223 leaves roughly the same size exit wound as entry wound. The .45 simply delivers more brute force whereas the .223 punches through and keeps going leaving less damage in its wake.

In the end the only time that an AR would be preferable over the .45 is when the intruder is wearing body armor. The .223 has a greater chance of penetrating it...but its more likely that that it will hurt the intruder a little more. But even still...a .45 would knock the guy on his ass.


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. 17th, 2013 @ 11:12 AM Reply

At 1/17/13 10:02 AM, Camarohusky wrote: There is no lawful need for a high round magazine. There is no lawful need for a gun the looks like a military gun.

I am still waiting to see exactly how this is an unessecary infringement when the right to bear arms still exists and the arms being restricted have no lawful purpose.

While there is minimal lawful need...similarly there is no compelling purpose to ban them either. There is no public good to be had from their banning.

Ergo since there is no compelling need or public good to be had in banning them, any law regulating, restricting, or banning them is by definition unnecessary.

The argument that this is an unnecessary infringment is that there is no justification that makes these laws necessary.


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. 17th, 2013 @ 12:00 PM Reply

At 1/17/13 01:18 AM, theburningliberal wrote: The phrase "well-regulated" also appears in reference to militias, and Supreme Court reading of the second Amendment not only denies parity between military and civilian guns (which is why a civilian can't go to the local gun store and pick up an M4 or something), but takes the phrase "well-regulated" and extends it to all gun laws on the book. As long as gun laws pass the test of constitutional muster (usually strict scrutiny with 2nd Amendment rights), it is constitutional. This usually means that there needs to be a significant and compelling state interest in regulating these weapons, but guns can, in fact, be regulated by the government.

* You can go to the store and buy a M-4 that has all the features of a military M-4 with the exception of selective fire. Now here's the thing...the only thing a burst fire setting is good for is for suppressive fire...of making the bad guy keep their heads down. It does not make them more deadly. In fact the recoil created by higher rates of fire reduces accuracy to the point of absurdity. That's why militaries are abandoning full-auto assault rifles in favor of 3-round bursts.

The M-4 civilian variant is still capable of 99% of military operations.

* Secondly, the SCOTUS talks about the government having the right to limit unusual and uncommon firearms. The question becomes: do military style assault rifle 'clones' count as unusual or uncommon? Now, if the intent of the second amendment is not self-defense or hunting (as according to SCOTUS in 2008)...then the M-4 and AK-47 is actually very common. The AK is the prolific gun in the world. On the other hand .50 cal turret mounted machine guns and light machine guns are not common and are unusual. Furthermore, the intermediate round fired by the assault rifle is not unusually deadly...in fact military style ammo is often LESS lethal than common hunting rifle rounds (which are more powerful). They are also less lethal than self-defense rounds which are less powerful.

Ergo there is nothing about about these firearms (and their caliburs) that makes them uncommon or unusual. Therefore, these do not qualify for regulation under the SCOTUS language.

* Finally, let's talk about the term 'well-regulated'. It is used in the text of the second amendment as a modifier. What it means is: the militia conforms to accepted military standards. An example of this was the requirment of males between certain ages drilled according to a certain schedule. It was not written to describe government laws...but the nature of the militia as an organized (somewhat) fighting force.

Which brings me to another point: the hypocrasy of the 'well-regulated militia' crowd. The argument that supporters of the second amendment focus on the 'shall not be infringed' part of the amendment while ignoring the 'well-regulated militia' part. The truth is the people who focus on the second half of the text focus on that because that is where the focus of the second amendment is. Let's look at this grammatically:

"A well 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."

There is no action verb in the first clause: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,". The only verb (regulated being a modifier here) in this clause is 'being' which is defined as: existing. Hell...some dictionaries don't even consider the word to even be a verb but a noun or adjective! In short, there is no action that is either authorized or prohibited in this clause.

It exists strictly as a preamble to describe why the second amendment is important. It was a very common custom at the time for things of such great import to have a preamble clause.

Now let's look at the second clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" Shall is a verb...an action verb. It perscribes an action that compliance with is deemed necessary...or when coupled with 'not' perscribes an action that will not occur. In this way this clause does two things:
a) establish that access to arms is a right of the people...which means it is an individual right as opposed to a federal or state right.
b) establishes that this right will not be taken away.

I think there is a limit to this. I don't see where a civilian needs a tank, F-16 or even machine guns (which an assault rifle does not qualify for). While the national guard is NOT the same thing as the militia...it does serve a similiar purpose. In the event of a national collapse...many of those weapons would fall under the control of the state militias.

But as for assault rifles...the intent is the militia provides their own small arms. Therefore, it is important for these types of firearms to remain available.


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. 17th, 2013 @ 12:05 PM Reply

At 1/17/13 10:02 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
There is no lawful need for a high round magazine. There is no lawful need for a gun the looks like a military gun.

There is one purpose: national defense. The second amendment was designed to provide for an armed populace that forms the backbone of our military. Afterall, the Constitution establishes a permanent Navy...but only authorizes the Army to be funded for two years at a time. There are numerous reasons for this, but the largest reason is they feared a standing army if you read the writings of the Founders.

The original intent was for civilians to provide their own small arms.

Now once that becomes a threat to the public good, health, and/or welfare...any attempt to ban them is unnecessary. At this point...no such threat can be demonstrated to exist.


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

BBS Signature
MrPercie
MrPercie
  • Member since: Apr. 5, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 33
Gamer
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 17th, 2013 @ 12:32 PM Reply

At 1/15/13 11:23 PM, LemonCrush wrote: To those who said "it couldn't happen" or "they aren't trying to ban ALL guns"

Here ya go.

Every gun with more than a 7 round capacity. Which is practically every gun other than revolvers and some 1911s.

Well the idea of making high round capacity magazines difficult to obtain so if every a person trys to attempt a serial killing or mass murder, it would be more difficult, does sound like a good idea, I think outright banning them is a bit extreme and unnecessary.

In a side story, the "president", tomorrow, is holding a press conference regarding his upcoming ban, with children from Sandy Hook by his side. Going for maximum irrational emotional appeal, much like Hitler and Mao, and other murderers.

Bastard.

In another side story, thankfully, thousand of police chiefs nationwide have publicly said they will defy enforcement of any law they deem unconstitutional, in regards to guns and gun rights.

well that's good. Should try and write to you're local police chief and join groups n shit if you want to get anything done.


BBS Signature
adrshepard
adrshepard
  • Member since: Jun. 18, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 17th, 2013 @ 12:55 PM Reply

At 1/17/13 10:02 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Did they intend for the people to have cannons? Mortars? Grenades?

Actually you can legally own cannons and mortars, provided they don't use cartridges. You can even own fully automatic machine guns, subject to a background investigation.

They clearly intended a limit to what the people would have. Assault weapons is very much pushing that limit.

I don't know how you can read that much into it. There simply wasn't as much variety in firearms back then. Pretty much every gun was a single shot weapon, with bullet size and firing mechanism being the only variations.

I am still waiting to see exactly how this is an unessecary infringement when the right to bear arms still exists and the arms being restricted have no lawful purpose.

You still don't get it. Bearing arms is a given right. You don't need a lawful or good reason to exercise it. Instead of asking, "why do you need it," you should be saying, "here's why you shouldn't have it."

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 17th, 2013 @ 01:21 PM Reply

At 1/17/13 09:59 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Revolvers and bolt actions are Arms, are they not? So as long as you have access to them your right to bear Arms is not infringed.

How is an AWB not an infringement? An infringement is defined as being a violation, breach, or encroachment on a right. A ban on 'military style' guns encroaches my right to go to the store and buy one. So while I can have some firearms...my ability to own some is taken away.

Now, I can agree that there are reasonable limits to this right. I do not need a tank or machine gun. There is a degree of martial power that is too much for a civilian to own.

But the question is: does banning them serve the public good? Is there a compelling reason to ban them? Is there something unusual and uncommon about them that makes them fall into the category of being too much for civilians to own?

At this point, no one from the President of the United States, to gun control advocates, to people on this BBS...has been able to establish this justification.

Show me the ballistics and the crime trends that show that these are the extraordinary 'killing machines' they are made out to be by yellow journalists and politicians.

Show me the science...not 'common sense' rhetoric based on ignorance.


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

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. 17th, 2013 @ 02:22 PM Reply

At 1/17/13 10:02 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
There is no lawful need for a high round magazine.

The answer to this fallacy is very clearly answered in the Second Amendment. Do you want to find it, or should I explain it?

Kel-chan
Kel-chan
  • Member since: Mar. 6, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Animator
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 17th, 2013 @ 02:37 PM Reply

i unno why people don't understand what the word infringe means

1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.

"A well 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."

no matter how you slice it- it doesn't say anything about the type, style, or amount of "arms" anybody can "keep and bear"

If you don't like it, try and pass a constitutional amendment to repeal it

nobody seems to have any other problem with with arguing the other amendments- everybody likes those just fine

theburningliberal
theburningliberal
  • Member since: Jul. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 17th, 2013 @ 03:18 PM Reply

I'm going to post this first... This is a dissection of the Second Amendment done by the 9th circuit court of Appeals in Silveira v. Lockyer (2002) in response to the California Assault Weapons Ban that was passed following the 1989 slaughter of children at an elementary school. I will make another post afterwards (silly post limits).

Silveira v. Lockyer, decided 2002 in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1464183.html#searc h=%22ninth%20circuit%20%22second%20amendment%22%22

In this case, the 9th circuit dissects the 2nd amendment... Copied below:
1.âEUfThe Text and Structure of the Second Amendment Demonstrate that the Amendment's Purpose is to Preserve Effective State Militias; âEUo/ooThat Purpose Helps Shape the Content of the Amendment.

The Second Amendment states in its entirety: âEUo/ooâEUoeA well 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.âEU âEU' U.S. CONST. amend. âEU' II. As commentators on all sides of the debate regarding the amendment's meaning have acknowledged, the language of the amendment alone does not conclusively resolve the question of its scope. âEU' Indeed, the Second Amendment's text has been called âEUoepuzzling,âEUâEUo/oo19 âEUoean enigma,âEUâEUo/oo20 and âEUoebafflingâEUâEUo/oo21 by scholars of varying ideological persuasions.22 âEU'What renders the language and structure of the amendment particularly striking is the existence of a prefatory clause, a syntactical device that is absent from all other provisions of the Constitution, including the nine other provisions of the Bill of Rights.23 âEU'Our analysis thus must address not only the meaning of each of the two clauses of the amendment but the unique relationship that exists between them.

a.âEUfThe Meaning of the Amendment's First Clause: âEUo/ooâEUoeA Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary to the Security of A Free State.âEU

âEUfThe first or prefatory clause of the Second Amendment sets forth the amendment's purpose and intent. âEU' An important aspect of ascertaining that purpose and intent is determining the import of the term âEUoemilitia.âEU âEU' Many advocates of the traditional individual rights model, including the Fifth Circuit, have taken the position that the term âEUoemilitiaâEU was meant to refer to all citizens, and, therefore, that the first clause simply restates the second in more specific terms. âEU' See Emerson, 270 F.3d at 235 (âEUoeMilitia âEU¤ was understood to be composed of the people generally possessed of arms which they knew how to use, rather than to refer to some formal military group separate and distinct from the people at large.âEU). âEU' Relying on their definition of âEUoemilitia,âEU they conclude that the prefatory clause was intended simply to reinforce the grant of an individual right that they assert is made by the second clause. âEU' See id. at 236.24 âEU'We agree with the Fifth Circuit in a very limited respect. âEU' We agree that the interpretation of the first clause and the extent to which that clause shapes the content of the second depends in large part on the meaning of the term âEUoemilitia.âEU âEU' If militia refers, as the Fifth Circuit suggests, to all persons in a state, rather than to the state military entity, the first clause would have one meaning-a meaning that would support the concept of traditional individual rights. âEU' If the term refers instead, as we believe, to the entity ordinarily identified by that designation, the state-created and -organized military force, it would likely be necessary to attribute a considerably different meaning to the first clause of the Second Amendment and ultimately to the amendment as a whole.

âEUfWe believe the answer to the definitional question is the one that most persons would expect: âEUo/ooâEUoemilitiaâEU refers to a state military force. âEU' We reach our conclusion not only because that is the ordinary meaning of the word, but because contemporaneously enacted provisions of the Constitution that contain the word âEUoemilitiaâEU consistently use the term to refer to a state military entity, not to the people of the state as a whole. âEU' We look to such contemporaneously enacted provisions for an understanding of words used in the Second Amendment in part because this is an interpretive principle recently explicated by the Supreme Court in a case involving another word that appears in that amendment-the word âEUoepeople.âEUâEUo/oo25 âEU'That same interpretive principle is unquestionably applicable when we construe the word âEUoemilitia.âEU

âEUoeMilitiaâEU appears repeatedly in the first and second Articles of the Constitution. âEU' From its use in those sections, it is apparent that the drafters were referring in the Constitution to the second of two government-established and -controlled military forces. âEU' Those forces were, first, the national army and navy, which were subject to civilian control shared by the president and Congress,26 and, second, the state militias, which were to be âEUoeessentially organized and under control of the states, but subject to regulation by Congress and to âEU~federalizationâEUTM at the command of the president.âEU âEU' Paul Finkelman, âEUoeA Well Regulated MilitiaâEU: âEUo/ooThe Second Amendment in Historical Perspective, 76 CHI.-KENT L. REV. 195, 204 (2000).

Article I also provides that the militia, which is essentially a state military entity, may on occasion be federalized; âEUo/ooCongress may âEUoeprovide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.âEU âEU'U.S. CONST. art. I, §âEU'8, cl. 15. âEU' The fact that the militias may be âEUoecalled forthâEU by the federal government only in appropriate circumstances underscores their status as state institutions. âEU' Article II also demonstrates that the militia were conceived of as state military entities; âEUo/ooit provides that the President is to be âEUoeCommander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.âEU âEU'Id. art. âEU' II, §âEU'2, cl. 1 (emphasis added). âEU' Like the Second Amendment, not all of the provisions in Articles I and II refer specifically to the militia as âEUoethe state militia.âEU âEU' Nevertheless, the contexts in which the term is used demonstrate that even without the prefatory word, âEUoemilitiaâEU refers to state military organizations and not to their members or potential members throughout these two Articles.

theburningliberal
theburningliberal
  • Member since: Jul. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 17th, 2013 @ 03:46 PM Reply

At 1/17/13 01:21 PM, TheMason wrote:
At 1/17/13 09:59 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
How is an AWB not an infringement? An infringement is defined as being a violation, breach, or encroachment on a right. A ban on 'military style' guns encroaches my right to go to the store and buy one. So while I can have some firearms...my ability to own some is taken away.

I will say the US Supreme Court has yet to decide the constitutionality of a federal assault weapons ban, but state supreme courts, federal district courts and the US Supreme Court have historically acted in a manner that would be consistent with upholding an assault weapons ban. Indeed, state assault weapons bans have been challenged on a number of federal questions, but no challenges based on the second amendment have made it to the supreme court. However, arguments have been raised by pro-gun advocates that AWB violates the following provisions of the US Constitution:

The Commerce Clause (Olympic Arms v. Magaw, Navegar v. US). In Olympic Arms, the trial court ruled that an AWB does not exceed Congress's power under the commerce clause. On appeal, this judgment was affirmed. In Navegar, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, effectively killing it at the appellate level, where the judgment also affirmed the constitutionality of the AWB.

Bill of Attainder - through several court cases, an AWB has not been found to constitute a bill of attainder.

Supremacy Clause - all court challenges to AWB's have been rejected by the court under the Supremacy clause.

First Amendment - court challenges to AWB's under the first amendment have not been successful.

Now, the important one here, the second Amendment. Interestingly, in Silviera v. Lockyer, a federal district court found that no right to bear arms constitutionally exists. This case died at the district court level, meaning state courts in the 9th circuit are bound to follow this interpretation. It is important to note that Silviera was overruled by Heller, but the school of thought behind Silveira is still present in judicial circles.

In two other cases, the courts have flatly rejected to hear constitutional challenges to bans on "assault weapons."

Fifth/14th Amendment challenges both on due process and equal protection have been largely unsuccessful except in cases where the law was written vaguely.

Now, I can agree that there are reasonable limits to this right. I do not need a tank or machine gun. There is a degree of martial power that is too much for a civilian to own.

So at least we agree on this question, the question then becomes where is that brightline to be drawn?

But the question is: does banning them serve the public good? Is there a compelling reason to ban them? Is there something unusual and uncommon about them that makes them fall into the category of being too much for civilians to own?

From Miller v. United States:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense... The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."'

Miller was the case that led to the development of the unusual or uncommon test that we have been discussing. Based on my reading of the opinion, it would seem that the burden of proof is not on supporters of an AWB to prove that these weapons are "unusual and uncommon," rather, the burden is on advocates of these weapons to show that they are in common use. Now, as I have stated before, I am purposefully ignorant of the technical knowledge, so I don't personally know what weapons could fall into this category. However, since I am not the one that would argue this case in court, I don't really need it. I am sure, however, that the people defending such laws would be able to produce expert witnesses that would separate guns into two categories: "usual and common" and "unusual and uncommon." How those categories would be defined and what guns would fall into them, I do not know, but I think it is safe to say that there are many "assault-style" weapons that would not fall into the usual and common category. And, again, it ultimately becomes your burden to show that they are common and usual, not ours.

At this point, no one from the President of the United States, to gun control advocates, to people on this BBS...has been able to establish this justification.

Show me the ballistics and the crime trends that show that these are the extraordinary 'killing machines' they are made out to be by yellow journalists and politicians.

The children who died at Sandy Hook were shot anywhere from two to 11 times, with some of the victims being completely unrecognizable. 20% of officers who died in the line of duty during the federal AWB were killed by weapons either banned by the law or weapons modified to skirt the edges of the AWB.

Show me the science...not 'common sense' rhetoric based on ignorance.

Don't you love the NRA? As a result of NRA lobbying, these has been a federal moratorium on research into gun violence. So, because your gun lobby doesn't want the rest of us to know how deadly these weapons can be in the hands of some people, science on this subject has to be done with private research, which not only makes it hard to find, it also brings the objectivity of the researchers into question. At least with the executive orders issued by the President yesterday, we now have the CDC researching the triggers and effects of gun violence.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 17th, 2013 @ 04:47 PM Reply

At 1/17/13 03:46 PM, theburningliberal wrote: The children who died at Sandy Hook were shot anywhere from two to 11 times, with some of the victims being completely unrecognizable. 20% of officers who died in the line of duty during the federal AWB were killed by weapons either banned by the law or weapons modified to skirt the edges of the AWB.

Exactly.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 17th, 2013 @ 05:37 PM Reply

At 1/17/13 02:22 PM, LemonCrush wrote: The answer to this fallacy is very clearly answered in the Second Amendment. Do you want to find it, or should I explain it?

No it's not.

At 1/17/13 02:37 PM, Kellz5460 wrote:.

2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.
"A well 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."

no matter how you slice it- it doesn't say anything about the type, style, or amount of "arms" anybody can "keep and bear"

You are right. It doesn't say anything about what type of guns or how many. It MERELY guarantees the right to bear arms. Nothing it it guarantees the right to bear whatever arms you feel like. Now, as I have pointed out, revolvers and bolt action rifles ARE arms. Therefore the right to retain arms has been retained, and not obsoleted, defeated, or invalidated. Hence, it has not been infringed.

nobody seems to have any other problem with with arguing the other amendments- everybody likes those just fine

No one has recently tried to overextend the boundaries of the other Amendments.

At 1/17/13 01:21 PM, TheMason wrote: How is an AWB not an infringement? An infringement is defined as being a violation, breach, or encroachment on a right. A ban on 'military style' guns encroaches my right to go to the store and buy one.

Better argument, but still, hardly convincing.


Now, I can agree that there are reasonable limits to this right. I do not need a tank or machine gun. There is a degree of martial power that is too much for a civilian to own.

But the question is: does banning them serve the public good? Is there a compelling reason to ban them? Is there something unusual and uncommon about them that makes them fall into the category of being too much for civilians to own?

It's simple. Guns are dangerous. Guns have an automatic reason to be completely outlawed. However, the second Amendment does guarantee the right to have guns. Where should the limits lie? You say on danger. Well, like I said before, that's a poor place to go because then we get to splitting hairs as to "what is more dangerous: maming or maming?" Any 2 year old can tell you ALL guns are dangerous. So danger just is very feasible a place to set the boundaries. So let's go with lawful need. That is a very good place to draw the line between what should be allowed and what should be an overstepping of a very vague Amendment. So let;s take a peek, now should we.

- Rifles - general: their lawful need is clear: Hunting.
- Rifles meant to look like military rifles: the lawful need is not clear at all. The mere want is not a lawful need.
- Semi-automatic firearms: The needs of self defense and certain types of hunting nessecitate the quick shooting of several rounds, thus it is a need.
- Pistols: pistols are optimal for self defense and thus are a need.
- Shotguns: shotguns are optimal for certain types of hunting and thus are a need.
- high capacity magazines: No reasonable self defense or hunting scenario nessecitates the quick firing of more than 7 roundsin such a short period.
- Forward grip: I am inclined to believe that there is no reasonable scenario where a vertical forward grip is needed for hunting or self defense.

In other words: all lawful needs for firearms remain even after the proprosed restrictions.

I would also say, in response to the anti-tyrrany point, that the difference between 7 rounds and 10 rounds, or a rifle that looks like an M1 and one that looks like and M-16, makes little to no difference in fighting a mobilized military force, so that argument holds very little water.

This is not comparable to the freedom of speech either. The freedom of speech exists on the presumption that all speech has a use and that the speech must be exraordinary to be restricted. The presumption here is that all guns are dangerous and there must be a specific lawful need to subject the entirety of the nation to that danger. Even then, speech is restricted all the time, and it's much more protectable than guns are.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 17th, 2013 @ 05:42 PM Reply

At 1/17/13 03:46 PM, theburningliberal wrote: Now, the important one here, the second Amendment. Interestingly, in Silviera v. Lockyer, a federal district court found that no right to bear arms constitutionally exists. This case died at the district court level, meaning state courts in the 9th circuit are bound to follow this interpretation. It is important to note that Silviera was overruled by Heller, but the school of thought behind Silveira is still present in judicial circles.

Just a point of clarification here: Federal District Court decisions have no binding value on anything. Those decisions only have binding value after the Circuit Court (Appellate) level. On top of that, the biing effect of Federal Circuit Courts on State Courts is spotty at best because of the whole Federalism thing. Preemption must come into play for any Federal Circuit Court decision to have any bearing on a State Court decision. There a couple other ways for it to work, but they are quite rare.