since NY has one of the lowest violent crime rates in the country, I think this guy ought to be taken seriously.
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;39399609]Are you really claiming that the 2nd amendment, called the right to bear arms, that has a line specifically stating "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" does not explicitly state that we protected from infringement of our right to keep and or bear arms?[/QUOTE]
No, I'm saying that it also includes in it a purpose. Were it simply "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," I would look like a lunatic saying that. But it shoves "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" in front of that. So you can take it to mean many different things. Necessity of a militia, [b]thus[/b] right to arms. Necessity of a militia [b]and[/b] right to arms. States have the right to armed militias.
When this was written, the distinction was not an issue. Think back to your American history class. The militias of the time were composed of the common people. They would work their jobs normally, and if duty called, they would take up arms. Arming the people and arming the militia were one in the same. Nowadays we have standing state militias (the National Guard). They're not the same thing, and so the Constitution shows its age. So now we need to decide which interpretation it is.
[QUOTE=mastermaul;39399452]That's not how Supreme Court decisions work. It's not the normal cat and mouse game of politics where the status quo can be changed every time someone new takes office. Supreme Court decisions are decisions. [url=http://www.nakedvillainy.com/images/2ndamenddiagrammed.gif]Grammatically, the wording of the Second Amendment isn't ambiguous at all.[/url][/quote]
And you're right. Supreme Court decisions, like any judicial precedent, cannot be overturned willy-nilly. You have to prove that the previous decision was in some way wrong. I don't see how that changes things though. Also, exact grammar is not the same as meaning. English is not a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_language]formal language[/url], so you have to take into account context and intentions.
[quote]Standardized background checks already do this. The requirement of [I]explicit permission[/I] to exercise an [I]individual right[/I] criminalizes everyone.
Even then I think it's a bit of a fallacy that when the government is tasked with rehabilitating and reintegrating a convict, and then releases said person back into the public on the grounds that they have been rehabilitated and are suitable for reintegration, they still treat said person as though they have not been rehabilitated (and thus as though did not perform their duty) and then strip them of constitutional rights with no chance of reprisal.[/QUOTE]
That does touch on a larger issue about how effective our penal system really is (not at all), but until it is fixed, do you want someone with a history of violent crime holding a weapon? I see this like the right to own a car, frankly. Everyone has the right to own a car. But since they're such dangerous machines, we require that people take classes and exams first. If they pass, they get a license. And if they prove themselves to be irresponsible, we remove that license because they are a danger to themselves and others. It didn't used to be that way, but once we changed to this system, The death rate via car dropped dramatically.
[QUOTE=OrionChronicles;39402726]since NY has one of the lowest violent crime rates in the country, I think this guy ought to be taken seriously.[/QUOTE]
I believe they also had a celebration late last year when they went a day without anybody getting shot or stabbed.
Gunpunchers can feel free to shower me with boxes, but I just don't see the reason why anyone needs a fucking assault rifle outside of a combat zone. You wanna defend your home because this hurr is merica and you got your second amendment rats, that's fine. But you don't need a goddamn AR15 (ok I don't know a lot about guns so sorry that I actually named a rifle that's semi-automatic. but that's just really picking at some fucking nits)
[QUOTE=TunnelSnake;39403112]Gunpunchers can feel free to shower me with boxes, but I just don't see the reason why anyone needs a fucking assault rifle outside of a combat zone. You wanna defend your home because this hurr is merica and you got your second amendment rats, that's fine. But you don't need a goddamn AR15[/QUOTE]
Why do the cops need AR-15s?
Because they're fucking cops for christs sake. If you keep going by that logic then soon you'd be asking why the military gets Abrams tanks and we don't.
[QUOTE=TunnelSnake;39403112]Gunpunchers can feel free to shower me with boxes, but I just don't see the reason why anyone needs a fucking assault rifle outside of a combat zone. You wanna defend your home because this hurr is merica and you got your second amendment rats, that's fine. But you don't need a goddamn AR15[/QUOTE]
Nobody has a assault rifle out side of a combat zone. An ar-15 is not an assault rifle, it is semi-automatic . In fact it is already illegal to own a assault rifle.
[QUOTE=TunnelSnake;39403251]Because they're fucking cops. If you keep going by that logic then soon you'd be asking why the military gets Abrams tanks and we don't.[/QUOTE]
His point is that a cop is nothing more than a civilian with a gun. A cop has no more right to an AR-15 than you or me the only thing that makes him different is he arrests people and I work at a welding shop.
America was founded on the principalities of equal rights for its citizenry and little to no infringement upon our 'God-Given' Rights. That's the way its works and that's how it should stay.
[QUOTE=TunnelSnake;39403251]Because they're fucking cops for christs sake. If you keep going by that logic then soon you'd be asking why the military gets Abrams tanks and we don't.[/QUOTE]
Why do cops NEED them?
[QUOTE=snapshot32;39403274]His point is that a cop is nothing more than a civilian with a gun. A cop has no more right to an AR-15 than you or me the only thing that makes him different is he arrests people and I work at a welding shop.[/QUOTE]
mhm yeah and soldiers are just civilians that go to other countries and kill people.
[QUOTE=TunnelSnake;39403344]mhm yeah and soldiers are just civilians that go to other countries and kill people.[/QUOTE]
No, cops actually ARE civilians. They have an increased sense of self worth because they spent a semester going to night school at the community college to become a cop, but they are still normal civilians.
[QUOTE=Ridge;39403332]Why do cops NEED them?[/QUOTE]
I never said cops NEED them either, but I'd much rather a TRAINED POLICE OFFICER have access to one WHILE ON DUTY in a HIGH RISK MATTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND/OR LIFE OR DEATH.
Obviously I'm not saying every fucking patrol car should have an assault rifle in it. That's what fucking SWAT is for
[QUOTE=TunnelSnake;39403365] in a HIGH RISK MATTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND/OR LIFE OR DEATH.[/QUOTE]
And screw everyone else who just lives and works in those high risk areas?
[QUOTE=Ridge;39403363]No, cops actually ARE civilians. They have an increased sense of self worth because they spent a semester going to night school at the community college to become a cop, but they are still normal civilians.[/QUOTE]
Ok wow you are so very very wrong that I actually don't want to take the time to point out how arrogant and smug you're being, so you win I guess?
You seem like one of those aspie fucks that walks around with a camera baiting every cop you see
[editline]29th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ridge;39403373]And screw everyone else who just lives and works in those high risk areas?[/QUOTE]
the fuck are you even referring to
[QUOTE=TunnelSnake;39403387]Ok wow you are so very very wrong that I actually don't want to take the time to point out how arrogant and smug you're being, so you win I guess?
You seem like one of those aspie fucks that walks around with a camera baiting every cop you see[/QUOTE]
You sure are making an awful lot of assumptions of me simply because I disagree with you.
But please, inform me as to how cops are not civilians.
[QUOTE=TunnelSnake;39403112]Gunpunchers can feel free to shower me with boxes, but I just don't see the reason why anyone needs a fucking assault rifle outside of a combat zone. You wanna defend your home because this hurr is merica and you got your second amendment rats, that's fine. But you don't need a goddamn AR15[/QUOTE]
There is no reason to ban them. Here is an example.
[t]http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/tactical_22_press_release_image-tfb.jpg[/t]
[t]http://picturearchive.gunauction.com/4529174310/9372906/152%201.jpg_thumbnail1.jpg[/t]
[t]http://cdn2.cheaperthandirt.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/ruger1022.jpg[/t]
All three of these guns shoot the same exact round, the same exact way semi auto.
The top one is a "scary ar-15" style weapon (currently banned in my state due to pistol grip)
The middle one is ALSO BANNED (because of the part on the stock that flips down, my grandfather has one of these and now has to register it)
the bottom one is not banned in my state.
ALL THREE OF THESE GUNS SHOOT EXACTLY THE SAME.
Banning certain guns based on cosmetic features is downright idiotic feelgood bullshit.
They know handguns are a problem, stopping handguns is a much tougher issue though so they are trying to horde as many feelgood points as they can right now.
[QUOTE=Ridge;39403373]And screw everyone else who just lives and works in those high risk areas?[/QUOTE]
He never said they shouldn't arm themselves, just that they don't need a large rifle. A handgun would probably work much better. Small, easier to handle, concealable. Although, really, if someone faces you with a weapon, ninety-nine times out of a hundred, you're better off just getting out of the way and letting the police go after them than attacking them. Far more likely to survive.
[QUOTE=Ridge;39403397]You sure are making an awful lot of assumptions of me simply because I disagree with you.
[/QUOTE]
well I just assumed you have aspergers because of your bizarre fixation on disrespecting cops as well as your pony avatar
I guess maybe you got a ticket driving too fast in your mom's car or something and the cop was a dick? Regardless, to write off the training and evaluations required to be a police officer as "night school at the community college" is just so rife with this unwarranted sense of condescension that it really gets me mad. And I don't normally take the time to debate someone on facepunch, but coming from someone who has multiple family members who are police officers as well as a father who was wounded in the line of duty it really comes off disrespectful and infuriating
[QUOTE=ac/14;39403432]There is no reason to ban them. Here is an example.
[t]http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/tactical_22_press_release_image-tfb.jpg[/t]
[t]http://picturearchive.gunauction.com/4529174310/9372906/152%201.jpg_thumbnail1.jpg[/t]
[t]http://cdn2.cheaperthandirt.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/ruger1022.jpg[/t]
All three of these guns shoot the same exact round, the same exact way semi auto.
The top one is a "scary ar-15" style weapon (currently banned in my state due to pistol grip)
The middle one is ALSO BANNED (because of the part on the stock that flips down, my grandfather has one of these and now has to register it)
the bottom one is not banned in my state.
ALL THREE OF THESE GUNS SHOOT EXACTLY THE SAME.
Banning certain guns based on cosmetic features is downright idiotic feelgood bullshit.
They know handguns are a problem, stopping handguns is a much tougher issue though so they are trying to horde as many feelgood points as they can right now.[/QUOTE]
FYI, I agree with you. The Assault Weapons Ban, as-is, is pretty much worthless. Though there is logic banning things like fully-automatic weapons and armor-piercing rounds. You know, things you wouldn't need unless you were going up against other people. An AR-15 is fine in my book. A MAC-10? Not so much.
[QUOTE=TunnelSnake;39403479]well I just assumed you have aspergers because of your bizarre fixation on disrespecting cops as well as your pony avatar[/QUOTE]
Attacking an individual based on his preferences in opinion an television viewing habits just makes you look bad, No where was he being condescending, he stated that regardless a class on weapon usage, cops are no more qualified to own an AR-15 than me or you.
You still haven't told me why cops aren't civilians.
[editline]29th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=ASmellyOgre;39403529]FYI, I agree with you. The Assault Weapons Ban, as-is, is pretty much worthless. Though there is logic banning things like fully-automatic weapons and armor-piercing rounds. You know, things you wouldn't need unless you were going up against other people. An AR-15 is fine in my book. A MAC-10? Not so much.[/QUOTE]
Fully automatic weapons have been regulated since 1934, and civilians have not been able to purchase a new one since May 1986, when the registry was closed. The ones that are still in circulation cost $10,000 to start and require a lengthly background check from the ATF that takes about 8 months, and a $200 tax to transfer ownership of it.
[QUOTE=Ridge;39403555]You still haven't told me why cops aren't civilians.[/QUOTE]
because they aren't. They're COPS. Maybe when they're off duty they can be considered civilians.
[QUOTE=TunnelSnake;39403572]because they aren't. They're COPS. Maybe when they're off duty they can be considered civilians.[/QUOTE]
That's the kind of mentality we're referring to a cop is no more superior than a civilian and no more qualified to own or operate an AR-15 suggesting such is ridiculous.
[QUOTE=snapshot32;39403536]Attacking an individual based on his preferences in opinion an television viewing habits just makes you look bad[/QUOTE]
watching mlp makes you look bad
[QUOTE=snapshot32;39403536] No where was he being condescending[/QUOTE]
hmm maybe you missed a few posts
[QUOTE=snapshot32;39403536] he stated that regardless a class on weapon usage, cops are no more qualified to own an AR-15 than me or you.[/QUOTE]
I'm not talking about cops OWNING that type of firearm, I simply said that they SHOULD have ACCESS to them in extreme circumstances (i.e. swat)
[editline]29th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=snapshot32;39403595]That's the kind of mentality we're referring to a cop is no more superior than a civilian and no more qualified to own or operate an AR-15 suggesting such is ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
of course they're more qualified, but again, I'm not saying they should have preferential ownership or anything like that
but the training, scrutiny they are under, and the uniform they have to put on every day for work is what separates police officers from those they are sworn to protect and serve
[QUOTE=TunnelSnake;39403606]I'm not talking about cops OWNING that type of firearm, I simply said that they SHOULD have ACCESS to them in extreme circumstances (i.e. swat)[/QUOTE]
I don't disagree, the job of policing a society can be dangerous form time to time, However denying 'civilians' their right of ownership is silly and unconstitutional.
Edit: Seriously he like MLP whys that a bad thing, how is he less of a person than you?
[QUOTE=snapshot32;39403648]I don't disagree, the job of policing a society can be dangerous form time to time, However denying 'civilians' their right of ownership is silly and unconstitutional.[/QUOTE]
I admit I made a mistake that's common among people who aren't gun enthusiasts, I said AR-15, when I really meant scary fully auto assault rifles, which apparently been heavily restricted since 1934 so I stand corrected on that point
[editline]29th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=snapshot32;39403648]
Edit: Seriously he like MLP whys that a bad thing, how is he less of a person than you?[/QUOTE]
i have mountains of scientific research, clinical studies, and powerpoints chock full of evidence to show you exactly how that is true but its on my other comp sry
[QUOTE=Adlertag1940;39398397]Issue at hand is really the projectile.[/QUOTE]
Issue at hand is really the [SUB]82[/SUB]Pb Atom.
[QUOTE=TunnelSnake;39403572]because they aren't. They're COPS. Maybe when they're off duty they can be considered civilians.[/QUOTE]
Actually.
A police officer is a civilian. They are considered a public employee. As a police officer, you have no rights beyond what you have as a civilian. The only "right" you have is to press charges and arrest someone and you have been commissioned to do so by your local government or state - depending on the requirements of your area.
You may have the ability to carry firepower that is typically banned, but this is only in your law enforcement capacity and the firearm belongs to the department. So, if you are say, on SWAT, you're not going to be able to take your MP5, M4, G36C, or whatever your department issue firearm home with you. (Unless it is your service sidearm.)
The police are not employees of the federal government or the military (Regardless if they are active duty or not in the military while serving as a police officer. They are still a civilian police officer when acting in that capacity...) So, they are, there for, civilians.
I would know. :)
[QUOTE=HkSniper;39403833]Actually.
A police officer is a civilian. They are considered a public employee. As a police officer, you have no rights beyond what you have as a civilian. The only "right" you have is to press charges and arrest someone and you have been commissioned to do so by your local government or state - depending on the requirements of your area.
You may have the ability to carry firepower that is typically banned, but this is only in your law enforcement capacity and the firearm belongs to the department. So, if you are say, on SWAT, you're not going to be able to take your MP5, M4, G36C, or whatever your department issue firearm home with you.
[/QUOTE]
Right, (for christs sake people why does everyone think I'm saying that cops should have special privileges?) and while legally they are technically civilians, I think we all know in reality that a cop on the street is operating on a different level than regular joe doing his morning commute. you can debate for hours about the thin blue line and whatnot, but at the end of the day, while on duty, a cop is a cop, and a citizen is a citizen. the ethical quandaries arising from that is a mess I'm not stepping in
obama's executive orders included provisions about mental health and fixing the ATF's firearm control loopholes, did it not
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
