Wakeboarder Forum Index

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   StatisticsStats   FavoritesFavorites   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages  Log inLog in 
BlogsBlogs   

NY passes new gun law
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Wakeboarder Forum Index -> Non-Wakeboarding
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Ladies Man


Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond

PostPosted: Jan 15, 2013 7:20 am    Post subject: NY passes new gun law Reply with quote

Looks like NY is the first to get theirs done. Article link below. A couple exerpts and comments/questions.

Quote:
"This is not about taking anyone's rights away," said Sen. Jeffrey Klein


Really? The below is certainly an infringement of rights and taking away the right for people to freely buy/sell arms. I don't recall the 2nd Amendment limiting how weapons are handled.

Quote:
Private sales of assault weapons to someone other than an immediate family would be subject to a background check through a dealer.



Quote:
Under current state law, assault weapons are defined by having two "military rifle" features, such as folding stock, muzzle flash suppressor or bayonet mount. The proposal would reduce that to one feature, including the popular pistol grip.


So, how is this going to change anything about the gun? They won't look as mean and gun makers will adapt them to adhere to this, but they will still be a semi-automatic rifle that shoots a fairly powerful round.

Quote:
failing to safely store a weapon could lead to a misdemeanor charge.


I can go along with laws like this since they are an after the fact law. Same as shooting someone would be after the fact. These things would be more agreeable than "prevention" type ideas that take a guilty before proven innocent approach.

Quote:
Ammunition magazines would be restricted to seven bullets, from the current 10,


If the current restriction is 10, how did the guy that shot the firefighters have an AR?

Quote:
"It is well-balanced, it protects the Second Amendment," said Senate Republican leader Dean Skelos of Long Island.


Maybe someone can explain the logic here. If a piece of legislation limits a person, regarding their arms, in any way, it is an infringement and therefore does not protect the 2nd Amendment.

Quote:
Remington Arms Co. makes the Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle that was used in the Connecticut shootings and again on Christmas Eve when the two firefighters were slain in Webster. The two-century-old Remington factory in Ilion in central New York employs 1,000 workers in a Republican Senate district.


If they don't change the design of their AR, would they be prohibited from manufacturing this design in NY?

http://news.yahoo.com/ny-seals-1st-state-gun-laws-since-newtown-074653716.html

_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
NKCrider
Wakeboarder.com Freak
Wakeboarder.com Freak


Joined: 05 Apr 2008
Posts: 2644
City: NKC

PostPosted: Jan 15, 2013 8:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

a background check to buy ammo..... i can see the line at BPS, Dicks, and Walmart going around the building before hunting season
_________________
Lanexa VA
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Ladies Man


Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond

PostPosted: Jan 15, 2013 8:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yup...and what would it really accomplish?
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
microman
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much


Joined: 13 May 2004
Posts: 5377

PostPosted: Jan 15, 2013 9:20 am    Post subject: Re: NY passes new gun law Reply with quote

Okie Boarder wrote:

Really? The below is certainly an infringement of rights and taking away the right for people to freely buy/sell arms. I don't recall the 2nd Amendment limiting how weapons are handled.


Maybe you've answered this before (I missed it in the flood of posts) but is it really your belief that there should be no restrictions placed on the ownership of weapons/firearms? Where do you draw the line or do you?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Ladies Man


Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond

PostPosted: Jan 15, 2013 9:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, I do. I don't draw a line and neither does our 2nd Amendment. The right for a person to defend themselves against any enemy is inalienable and the 2nd Amendment clearly states it shall not be infringed.
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
microman
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much


Joined: 13 May 2004
Posts: 5377

PostPosted: Jan 15, 2013 9:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Okie Boarder wrote:
Yes, I do. I don't draw a line and neither does our 2nd Amendment. The right for a person to defend themselves against any enemy is inalienable and the 2nd Amendment clearly states it shall not be infringed.


I'd counter that the 2nd Amendment doesn't draw any lines because other than muskets and cannons, there wasn't anything else available. Nonetheless, I assume you feel that a person should have the right to possess all the same weapons as the military? In your mind, isn't there at least some point where the security of the public takes precedence over the individual "right to bear arms"?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
goofyboy
Wakeboarder.com Freak
Wakeboarder.com Freak


Joined: 19 Jul 2004
Posts: 4463
City: Houston

PostPosted: Jan 15, 2013 10:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have to disagree with Okie. The constitution is open for interpretation. Define arms. When it was written, arms were single shot muskets and cannons. Most folks could not afford a cannon. They could afford muskets. Of course, knives and swords are also weapons. I think it is up to the people to define "arms" in this day and age.
For me - anything that my local police department has, we should have. There may come a time that we the people have to take on the state. I hope not, but it has happened in the past and continues to happen around the world.

_________________
Work SUX!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
E.J.
Ladies Man
Ladies Man


Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Posts: 7597
City: Mogadishu

PostPosted: Jan 15, 2013 10:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just so I am clear..... We, as a Country, feel it is an infringement on the rights of our citizens to tell them what weapons they are "allowed" to possess.....BUT, we as a Country, feel it is our responsibility to tell other Countries, what weapons they are allowed to possess....

Check....Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NKCrider
Wakeboarder.com Freak
Wakeboarder.com Freak


Joined: 05 Apr 2008
Posts: 2644
City: NKC

PostPosted: Jan 15, 2013 10:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

goofyboy wrote:
For me - anything that my local police department has, we should have.


THIS!!!

_________________
Lanexa VA
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Ladies Man


Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond

PostPosted: Jan 15, 2013 10:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

microman wrote:
Okie Boarder wrote:
Yes, I do. I don't draw a line and neither does our 2nd Amendment. The right for a person to defend themselves against any enemy is inalienable and the 2nd Amendment clearly states it shall not be infringed.


I'd counter that the 2nd Amendment doesn't draw any lines because other than muskets and cannons, there wasn't anything else available. Nonetheless, I assume you feel that a person should have the right to possess all the same weapons as the military? In your mind, isn't there at least some point where the security of the public takes precedence over the individual "right to bear arms"?


Yes, muskets and cannons were all that existed. The 2nd Amendment could have stated only muskets were allowed if they felt limitations were not an infringement, but they didn't. That speaks volumes if you want to analyze and try to understand intent.

I believe the weapons a citizen can get is up to them and should not be limited, UNLESS, you limit it worldwide and make sure nobody else can have a certain weapon. The moment you allow the "enemy" to have a weapon and not a citizen, you have taken away their innate right to defend themselves from that "enemy". It would be the same as declawing a lion and sending it back out into the wild.

As far as security is concerned, this is one of the key elements that play into inalienable rights. It is our right to provide our own security. I have no problem with us having police, military, etc., but we also have the right to provide our own security. If you are worried about people committing a crime and killing others with a weapon, make the criminal act a more severe punishment. If I owned a RPG and never used it, why should that be wrong?

_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Ladies Man


Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond

PostPosted: Jan 15, 2013 10:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

E.J., pretty contradictory isn't it?
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
jason_ssr
Wakeboarder.com Freak
Wakeboarder.com Freak


Joined: 13 Jan 2003
Posts: 4054
City: Dallas, Tx

PostPosted: Jan 15, 2013 10:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

E.J. wrote:
Just so I am clear..... We, as a Country, feel it is an infringement on the rights of our citizens to tell them what weapons they are "allowed" to possess.....BUT, we as a Country, feel it is our responsibility to tell other Countries, what weapons they are allowed to possess....

Check....Laughing


What country is the US limiting their arms?



The right to bear arms was put in place to protect against tyranny for the long term, not just the immediate. I do not fear Obama becoming a tyrant. However, I am concerned that he may continue the erosion of the 2ndA to the point that my children\grandchildren may have to deal with one.

Gun legislation only hinders the good people. It has no affect on the evil of the world.

You cannot legislate against evil. You can only protect yourself from it.

The "should a citizen be able to own a nuke?" argument is stupid. Its right up there with if you allow citizens to own an aircraft, they will all own space shuttles and blow each other up on liftoff in their neighborhoods.

_________________
TONA

My avatar is NOT a pic of me! HAHA!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
E.J.
Ladies Man
Ladies Man


Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Posts: 7597
City: Mogadishu

PostPosted: Jan 15, 2013 10:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jason_ssr wrote:
E.J. wrote:
Just so I am clear..... We, as a Country, feel it is an infringement on the rights of our citizens to tell them what weapons they are "allowed" to possess.....BUT, we as a Country, feel it is our responsibility to tell other Countries, what weapons they are allowed to possess....

Check....Laughing


What country is the US limiting their arms?



The right to bear arms was put in place to protect against tyranny for the long term, not just the immediate. I do not fear Obama becoming a tyrant. However, I am concerned that he may continue the erosion of the 2ndA to the point that my children\grandchildren may have to deal with one.



You don't think the United States is involved in what weapons other countries have access to and/or are able to possess/build?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
E.J.
Ladies Man
Ladies Man


Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Posts: 7597
City: Mogadishu

PostPosted: Jan 15, 2013 11:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

....and yes, I do think that the United States is in constant brokerage with the haves and making sure what weapons are being sold to the have nots. I also think that they spend an amazing amount of money monitoring this, facilitating this, blocking this bla..bla..bla...& I'm not just talking nuclear weapons.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
microman
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much


Joined: 13 May 2004
Posts: 5377

PostPosted: Jan 15, 2013 11:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Okie Boarder wrote:

Yes, muskets and cannons were all that existed. The 2nd Amendment could have stated only muskets were allowed if they felt limitations were not an infringement, but they didn't. That speaks volumes if you want to analyze and try to understand intent.


Why would they state muskets specifically if there were no other "arms" available? In recent 2nd amendment challenges even the US supreme court rulings were split along ideological lines rather than coming to an unanimous decision.

Okie Boarder wrote:

I believe the weapons a citizen can get is up to them and should not be limited, UNLESS, you limit it worldwide and make sure nobody else can have a certain weapon. The moment you allow the "enemy" to have a weapon and not a citizen, you have taken away their innate right to defend themselves from that "enemy". It would be the same as declawing a lion and sending it back out into the wild.

As far as security is concerned, this is one of the key elements that play into inalienable rights. It is our right to provide our own security. I have no problem with us having police, military, etc., but we also have the right to provide our own security. If you are worried about people committing a crime and killing others with a weapon, make the criminal act a more severe punishment. If I owned a RPG and never used it, why should that be wrong?


A lot of this is romantic thinking from a different age. People don't generally live out on isolated farms anymore where they need to protect themselves from animals and thieves. Instead we give power to the police to protect us from criminals rather than taking on that task ourselves.

We exist in a time where the majority of people live in close contact with one another in large cities where there is obviously a greater risk of disputes arising. A increase in the prevalence of firearms in this population can only lead to an escalation of violence, since people are not always the most dispassionate beings. There is really no way of getting around that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Ladies Man


Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond

PostPosted: Jan 15, 2013 11:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

Why would they state muskets specifically if there were no other "arms" available?


Cannons were available. As were knives and swords. All those items would be considered arms. They didn't single anything out and exclude it.

Look, you can disagree with it all you want, but it is pretty straightforward. The FF's spoke of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They also specifically noted some key things they felt the government should specifically not be able to take away in the BOR. Trying to infringe upon the right to defend ones self is no different than trying to infringe on that person's right to life.

If a person relinquishes all power to the state and expects protection from that state, they are a fool, IMO. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

I don't trust our government or any other group of people enough to put my life in their hands. Let me have the choice to do so myself instead of insisting on taking it away. If I mess up and unjustifiably shoot someone, punish me for it. But, don't assume that just because I want to own a gun and I want the liberty to be able to make that choice on my own that the worst case scenario is going to happen.

_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
RampageWake
Wakeboarder.Commie
Wakeboarder.Commie


Joined: 23 Jul 2003
Posts: 2002
City: Houston

PostPosted: Jan 15, 2013 11:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

Instead we give power to the police to protect us from criminals rather than taking on that task ourselves.

I think citizens have a legitimate fear about who will protect us from the police?
I understand that many think the state abusing their power is an impossibility, however, history is not on your side.

I agree with you that citizens should not have RPG's and grenades, however, I draw the line at infringing on semi automatic weapons. I agree that allowing the same arms as the local police can have is probably a good barometer.

_________________
Rhawn wrote:
You should have a less retarded friend read over your posts before you hit "Submit"

RIP M.H.Legge
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Ladies Man


Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond

PostPosted: Jan 15, 2013 11:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

microman, by the way...speaking of arms...which of the following guns do you think should be included in legislation to further regulate or ban?

This one?



or this one?


_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Nor*Cal
Ladies Man
Ladies Man


Joined: 12 Jan 2003
Posts: 9479
City: Sac

PostPosted: Jan 15, 2013 11:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ammunition sale restrictions have been attempted in CA but the courts didn't look favorably on them and the most recent one restricting mail-order sales has been overturned.
_________________
If I agreed with you we would both be wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
jason_ssr
Wakeboarder.com Freak
Wakeboarder.com Freak


Joined: 13 Jan 2003
Posts: 4054
City: Dallas, Tx

PostPosted: Jan 15, 2013 12:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

E.J. wrote:

You don't think the United States is involved in what weapons other countries have access to and/or are able to possess/build?


No, unless you consider being a member of the UN is "involved". If that is the case, which countries are not involved? Heck, the counties who are having their nuclear programs watched are also "involved".

_________________
TONA

My avatar is NOT a pic of me! HAHA!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
jryoung
Ladies Man
Ladies Man


Joined: 19 Mar 2004
Posts: 7664
City: Man Jose

PostPosted: Jan 15, 2013 1:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I know this much, if an AR ban goes into place and the 2014 elections go the same way they did in 1994....only this time with Rick Santorums, Michele Bachmans and Alan Wests of the world I'm most definitely going to want an AR.
_________________
Quote:
You don't meet many old vegans. It's mostly young priviliged kids trying to figure out where they stand in the world.
- Steve Rinella
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Blog Visit poster's website
shaggyboarder
Wakeboarder.Commie
Wakeboarder.Commie


Joined: 09 Nov 2004
Posts: 1631
City: ft. laud.... hook me up with a pull

PostPosted: Jan 15, 2013 5:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

One more reason not to want to live in NY.
_________________
Random Acts Of Dumbness Will Always Be Rewarded.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nor*Cal
Ladies Man
Ladies Man


Joined: 12 Jan 2003
Posts: 9479
City: Sac

PostPosted: Jan 16, 2013 10:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

microman wrote:
In your mind, isn't there at least some point where the security of the public takes precedence over the individual "right to bear arms"?


Alas, the purpose of the bill of rights is to protect individual rights over collective right and therein lies the rub and where most anti-gunownership folks lose track on constitutional interpretation.

The collective is not valued over the individual. Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.

_________________
If I agreed with you we would both be wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
3MileBayWaker
Soul Rider
Soul Rider


Joined: 14 Jan 2011
Posts: 256
City: Syracuse, NY

PostPosted: Jan 16, 2013 2:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

We're signing petitions out the ass up here, I guess we'll see if it does anything for us...
_________________
2010 Glastron GT 205XL ( Volvo 4.3L GL-J)
Low Profile Black Windshield
Roswell Wake Air Tower
2009 Liquid Force Trip 142/ 2008 CWB Answer
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Neognosis
Ladies Man
Ladies Man


Joined: 13 Jan 2003
Posts: 17617
City: Webster

PostPosted: Jan 16, 2013 4:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
failing to safely store a weapon could lead to a misdemeanor charge.


No, it should not be a misdemeanor. It should be a felony if an accident happens, or the gun is used to commit any crime in connection with not being properly secured. And the NRA should remove their head from their asses and make it so. It would likely result in greater protection of individual gun rights.

I recently heard a compelling argument that favored NOT the limiting of guns as part of gun control, but the implementation of harsh and very draconian punishment for any infringements of law involving guns. Celebrity on parole and you are spotted with a gun? Back to jail for a MINIMUM ten years. Leave your gun unlocked and someone steals it and commits a crime with it? TEN YEARS.
Commit any crime while in possession of a gun? Tack on another ten years.

I believe, after listening to this argument, that this would be more effective than limiting capacities or folding stocks.

_________________
I walk 47 miles of barb wire, I got a cobra snake for a necktie, a brand new house up on the road side, and it's made out of rattlesnake hide
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Nor*Cal
Ladies Man
Ladies Man


Joined: 12 Jan 2003
Posts: 9479
City: Sac

PostPosted: Jan 16, 2013 4:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Neognosis wrote:
Leave your gun unlocked and someone steals it and commits a crime with it? TEN YEARS.


So your house which is locked, is broken into, and someone steals a gun that is trigger locked, and you go to jail for 10-years? There has to be an out for reporting the gun stolen.

_________________
If I agreed with you we would both be wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Ladies Man


Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond

PostPosted: Jan 16, 2013 5:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree with gun crimes having harsh penalties. The whole crime for guns being stolen idea is a bit sketchy. You're now leaning in to dictate what is proper gun security and what is not. I agree with Nor*Cal's statement about reporting guns stolen. Even if I kept guns in a well secured safe, a person could break in and get into the safe if they tried hard enough. Why should an individual be responsible for multiple law infractions by someone else?
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Neognosis
Ladies Man
Ladies Man


Joined: 13 Jan 2003
Posts: 17617
City: Webster

PostPosted: Jan 16, 2013 6:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes.

I'm willing for an "opt out" if you can prove that you purchased an acceptable gun safe previous to the date you reported the gun stolen.

Now, I realize this means you can't leave your guns up on the wall on display, but don't worry, I'm sure that the market will adjust and someone will make a nice fortune making lockable gun display racks that meet the guidelines and are bolted to the house's wall studs or something.....

If we had MUCH harsher laws for failure to secure a gun at all times, either on your person or in a certain defined secure device which is not transportable, I think that it would preserve our rights to OWN the guns, yet make us RESPONSIBLE for their safekeeping.


Isn't "personal responsibility" one of the right's buzz phrases? How about you can own MOST of the arms that are buzz-word weapons for the left, but you are held to the utmost level of responsibility for what is done with those weapons, or your failure to secure them. All of them that you own.

_________________
I walk 47 miles of barb wire, I got a cobra snake for a necktie, a brand new house up on the road side, and it's made out of rattlesnake hide
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Ladies Man


Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond

PostPosted: Jan 16, 2013 6:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You're still imposing your rules and trying to infringe. You want to limit what weapons a person can choose to have and how they choose to keep them or else they are responsible for something someone else did that is multiple crimes. Let people have the liberty and freedom to choose how they secure their weapons and truly have personal responsiblity. If their weapons are stolen, they report that immediately upon discovery and at that point their hands are washed of the issue.

What is the point in punishing someone for having their weapons stolen, then used in a crime?

It sounds to me like you don't understand the concept of the basic right the 2nd Amendment protects and you don't understand liberty. Our FF's went to great lengths to preserve rights and liberty. Both of these concepts are about the individual. You still keep trying to impose ideas that are for the protection of society and not the individual. That is a drastically different idea than liberty and not the ideal this country is based upon.

_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Neognosis
Ladies Man
Ladies Man


Joined: 13 Jan 2003
Posts: 17617
City: Webster

PostPosted: Jan 16, 2013 6:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
You're now leaning in to dictate what is proper gun security and what is not.


So? Now you not only want the right to HAVE the guns, you want the right to endanger other people through your negligence?



Quote:
What is the point in punishing someone for having their weapons stolen, then used in a crime?



The punishment is not for having their guns stolen. It is for failing to adequately secure them.

It sounds to me like you are now stretching the 2and amendment even BEYOND your ridiculous literal translation. Now it also means that you should not be prosecuted for your failure to secure those arms? Where does it say that?

You are in trouble here. Even if granted the ABSOLUTELY SILLY idea that the interpretation of any part of the constitution cannot change, regardless of changes in the technology of the society, there is NOTHING in the 2and that says you have the right to behave irresponsibly with your arms.


Have a gun in your possession as a convicted felon? GOODBYE
Leave a gun unsecured, and someone steals it and shoots someone? GOODBYE


And as far as your romanticized idea of the ideals of the founding fathers, don't forget that these were traitors who owned other human beings.

Do you know what the 3/5 compromise is?
Did you know that the constitution, which you seem to think is almost as infallible and irrefutable as your bible, only counts certain human beings as 3/5ths of a person for purposes of taxation and representation.

THREE FIFTH'S of a person. Not only are they slaves, but they don't even get to count as a whole person for purposes of taxation and representation.

We never even bothered to amend that. We needed an amendment to OUTLAW THE OWNING OF OTHER HUMAN BEINGS.

Pretty offensive to us now, eh? I guess it goes to show that "liberty" is defined by the society at the time, NOT by some idea floating in the ether.

_________________
I walk 47 miles of barb wire, I got a cobra snake for a necktie, a brand new house up on the road side, and it's made out of rattlesnake hide
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Ladies Man


Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond

PostPosted: Jan 16, 2013 7:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

So? Now you not only want the right to HAVE the guns, you want the right to endanger other people through your negligence?


No, I want to have the right to defend myself remain uninfringed. And, I want to be able to be responsible for not endangering others on my own. If my guns are put away in a way that works well for myself and my family not to endanger others, what's the problem?

Quote:

The punishment is not for having their guns stolen. It is for failing to adequately secure them.


What is adequately. If I have properly educated my family and they never use guns for the wrong purpose, would having them in my drawer not be adequate?

Quote:

It sounds to me like you are now stretching the 2and amendment even BEYOND your ridiculous literal translation. Now it also means that you should not be prosecuted for your failure to secure those arms? Where does it say that?


Where does it say I have the right to keep and bear arms, but the government has the right to prosecute me for not securing them properly?

Quote:

You are in trouble here. Even if granted the ABSOLUTELY SILLY idea that the interpretation of any part of the constitution cannot change, regardless of changes in the technology of the society, there is NOTHING in the 2and that says you have the right to behave irresponsibly with your arms.


See, that's where you are trying to apply your viewpoint and define responsibility so you can dictate who has rights and who does not. That does not follow what the right is all about and what the 2nd Amendment limits. If I kill someone with my gun, prosecute me. I'm even willing to accept that if I threaten to kill someone or commit a different crime with my gun, prosecute me.

Quote:

We never even bothered to amend that. We needed an amendment to OUTLAW THE OWNING OF OTHER HUMAN BEINGS.


The amendment corrected that...it was realized that slavery was infringing on someone's rights, so following the amendment process a change was made.

Yet, you seem to want to reinstate slavery with the legislation you support. You want one man to dictate to another what is the right way to handle a basic right.

Liberty is not defined by society and you have a lot to learn about liberty. Liberty is allowing a person to make choices on their own instead of someone else making the choices for them. It also requires a huge amount of personal responsibility and prevents interference. That's why liberals and government don't like it...they can't put measures in place to control it. Wink

_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Neognosis
Ladies Man
Ladies Man


Joined: 13 Jan 2003
Posts: 17617
City: Webster

PostPosted: Jan 16, 2013 8:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
And, I want to be able to be responsible for not endangering others on my own. If my guns are put away in a way that works well for myself and my family not to endanger others, what's the problem?


If I drive as fast as I want on the highway, at a speed that works for me, what's the problem?


Quote:
What is adequately. If I have properly educated my family and they never use guns for the wrong purpose, would having them in my drawer not be adequate?


You could be shielded from prosecution if your guns were in, say... a locking, non-transportable safe, or other such device that locks the gun to a foundation or internal wall stud with bolts anchored to withstand a 400 lb force applied.

Or however we decide.

If you want to leave them in your drawer, ok. If they are used by your kid or a friend of your kid's to threaten someone, you go to jail for ten years.


Quote:
Where does it say I have the right to keep and bear arms, but the government has the right to prosecute me for not securing them properly?


it doesn't say that the gov't has the right to prosecute your for theft of intellectual property anywhere in the constitution either. I think you are mistaken in thinking that only things expressed in the constitution are legal. The constitution does not say that you can be prosecuted for tapping into your neighbor's cable line. It does not say that you can be prosecuted for lying under oath, or for refusing to comply with a police officer's lawful request. Or that you can be prosecuted for dumping human waste in your neighbor's yard. But i'm pretty sure those things are illegal, prosecutable, and their illegality does not violate the constitution. So clearly, your idea that there can be NO laws regarding crime committed with a firearm is very silly.


Quote:
If I kill someone with my gun, prosecute me. I'm even willing to accept that if I threaten to kill someone or commit a different crime with my gun, prosecute me.


Oh, I want to prosecute you if you kill anyone in any malicious manner, but if you use a gun, your sentence should be quadrupled.

And if someone else shoots someone with your gun, you should go to jail for at least ten years.

Quote:
Yet, you seem to want to reinstate slavery with the legislation you support. You want one man to dictate to another what is the right way to handle a basic right.


I'm sorry, a "basic right?"

Now that's just silly, and we are back to the concept of what a "right" is. It's almost as silly as the hyperbolic equating of slavery with gun control. Silly conservative.....

I'm sorry, but LIBERTY is a man made concept, and as such, it is PRECISELY defined by society. Why, the way you talk about liberty, you must now be in favor of gay marriage.

Quote:
That's why liberals and government don't like it


Now, you don't actually believe that, do you? Tell me you are just being inflammatory, and that you are not so twisted as to believe that citizens should be able to own weapons of mass destruction, N Korea and Iran should be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, AND on top of that, you also think liberals don't like "liberty?"




Man, you just keep feeding out the rope.

You want personal responsibility, but only if it doesn't mean that you face prosecution if you are irresponsible with the safe securing of your guns. I would say "unbelievable," but sadly it is not.

_________________
I walk 47 miles of barb wire, I got a cobra snake for a necktie, a brand new house up on the road side, and it's made out of rattlesnake hide
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
nmballa
Wakeboarder.com Freak
Wakeboarder.com Freak


Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Posts: 3906
City: Milwaukee

PostPosted: Jan 16, 2013 8:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nor*Cal wrote:
Neognosis wrote:
Leave your gun unlocked and someone steals it and commits a crime with it? TEN YEARS.


So your house which is locked, is broken into, and someone steals a gun that is trigger locked, and you go to jail for 10-years? There has to be an out for reporting the gun stolen.


Sure, but the vast majority of gun owners do not have them under lock and key. And per statistics the vast majority don't have a record of their serial number. Therein lies the problem.

_________________
jt09 wrote:
I used to get all happy when the girlie would make a colonic appointment. That meant she was going to be breaking out the "fine china" soon.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=509037985&ref=profile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
pyrocasto
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much


Joined: 29 Aug 2003
Posts: 5291
City: hendersonville

PostPosted: Jan 16, 2013 8:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I keep a gun in my car all the time. I should have to buy a gun safe to bolt to the frame to keep someone from breaking in?

As said, it would be difficult as guns are actually surprisingly difficult to track. If you have a gun the police cant tell if it's yours or not, only if it's been reported stolen. If you dont have record of the serial number you cant even report it...

_________________
eeven73 wrote:

At least 50% of the population is retarded so I discount what they think or feel automatically.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Neognosis
Ladies Man
Ladies Man


Joined: 13 Jan 2003
Posts: 17617
City: Webster

PostPosted: Jan 16, 2013 9:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I should have to buy a gun safe to bolt to the frame to keep someone from breaking in?



Yes.

But I think that if YOU feel that just locking your car is adequate, then take your chances.

Here in NY, the government has a record of every shotgun and rifle I have purchased.

In New Zealand, you actually are REQUIRED to keep a gun in a safe bolted to the frame, or at least the body.


I say that if you want a gun or guns, you should be responsible for what is done with those guns or gun, even if someone else does it. Unless you report the gun stolen. But only if it was stolen despite reasonable steps to secure it.

Seriously, this is how you preserve the right to own guns.


On another note, if the gov't develops secret new weapons (as I am sure they have done and are doing) and they don't release them to the public, is that infringing on our rights to keep and bear arms too?

_________________
I walk 47 miles of barb wire, I got a cobra snake for a necktie, a brand new house up on the road side, and it's made out of rattlesnake hide
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Wakeboarder Forum Index -> Non-Wakeboarding All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

Add To Favorites

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
             


Copyright © 2012 - Wakeboarding - Wakeboarder.com - All Right Reserved
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group