NYC residents told to surrender non compliant guns or move

[Doc Savage Fan]

My point was that (apparently) we don't need to be armed to the ****ing teeth to have a safe city. That flew over just about everyone's heads.

NYC is a safe city without guns. I can't see how bringing more guns here would make me any safer. It shows how bankrupt the 'armed society is a polite society' philosophy is.

My suggestion is that if you like safe cities with guns, move to El Paso. If you like safe cities without guns, move to NYC. If you want a city where abortion is safe and legal and the working poor are covered by Medicaid, move to NYC. If you want a city where you cannot get an abortion and you cannot get Medicaid unless you have children and make under $5,000 a year, move to El Paso.

America offers choices!

So...in conclusion...guns/lack of guns has nothing to do with NYC's safe city ranking. Thank you for acknowledging this point.

Your love it or leave comment struck a chord with me...it was a militant pro-Vietnam War slogan that was commonly directed at me and my ilk. Speaks volumes about the kind of mentality we're dealing with here.

 

[HumblePie]

Haha, you're implying that the supreme court's interpretation of the constitution is somehow beyond reproach.

You should do stand up.

Haha, any reproach you may have on their decisions doesn't mean squat when it comes to the law.

How many recent gun control laws has the SCOTUS shot down in the last few years versus upheld? I'll give you a hint, one side of that equation has a number greater than zero and the other side of that equation is a zero.

 

[Daverino]

So...in conclusion...guns/lack of guns has nothing to do with NYC's safe city ranking. Thank you for acknowledging this point.

Your love it or leave comment struck a chord with me...it was a militant pro-Vietnam War slogan that was commonly directed at me and my ilk. Speaks volumes about the kind of mentality we're dealing with here.

Does that mean you're leaving?

 

[Brainonska511]

I think background checks to make it more difficult for nutjobs to get guns are fine. But restricting the type of gun allowed could not be a more direct violation of the spirit of the 2nd amendment -- the whole point is so that there could be a private militia to fight back if the government got out of control.

Also, I don't believe for an instant that crime is down if you include crimes commited by government/corporations/police/etc.

Not to get involved in a whole-2nd amendment debate, but I have a few points to make, especially in regards to the idea of originalism and the 2nd amendment

1) Prior to the idea of incorporation, the Bill of Rights really only applied to actions of the Federal government. The States were free to trample your rights, within the guidelines of their own constitutions.
2) There wasn't a standing army at first and states had a need to be able to raise militias to protect their and the country's interests. With that in mind, you might imagine that the framers would write the 2nd amendment with that in mind. The states could regulate their own militias as they saw fit. I don't think the framers had anything in mind along the lines of a private militia.
3) The Constitution is filled with lots of ambiguous wording. But I'm sure there are many of us that have crystal balls in which we can channel the thoughts of the Founding Fathers to back up our personal interpretations of the Constitution.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Does that mean you're leaving?

Case in point.

 

[KB]

My point was that (apparently) we don't need to be armed to the ****ing teeth to have a safe city. That flew over just about everyone's heads.

NYC is a safe city without guns. I can't see how bringing more guns here would make me any safer.

Since NYC is safe and getting safer, and we determined that guns or lack of guns doesn't alter safety (gun friendly cities are as safe as gun control cities), then why do we need to change anything? Just let those who want guns keep them and those that don't want guns don't buy them. Don't ask people to turn things in because you think they are scary.

 

[HumblePie]

Not to get involved in a whole-2nd amendment debate, but I have a few points to make, especially in regards to the idea of originalism and the 2nd amendment

1) Prior to the idea of incorporation, the Bill of Rights really only applied to actions of the Federal government. The States were free to trample your rights, within the guidelines of their own constitutions.
2) There wasn't a standing army at first and states had a need to be able to raise militias to protect their and the country's interests. With that in mind, you might imagine that the framers would write the 2nd amendment with that in mind. The states could regulate their own militias as they saw fit. I don't think the framers had anything in mind along the lines of a private militia.
3) The Constitution is filled with lots of ambiguous wording. But I'm sure there are many of us that have crystal balls in which we can channel the thoughts of the Founding Fathers to back up our personal interpretations of the Constitution.

1) Not really. The powers granted by the Constitution are for the federal level. The specific Bill of Rights, which was later added, was suppose to preempt state, federal, or any local government laws that would try to trample those rights.

2 & 3) You do realize the Founding Fathers wrote many other documents about their ideas and opinions of laws and the Constitution that are far less "ambiguous" in their context. That they spelled out what they envision and that argument you are making is basically nonsense in light of all that other information they have put to paper. You realize this right?

 

[videogames101]

Are you waiting for the Supremier or Supremiest Court to weigh in?

Quite the contrary, I'm not waiting for a court decision to justify my opinions. I disagree with the SCOTUS on a fair number of points.

Haha, any reproach you may have on their decisions doesn't mean squat when it comes to the law.

Haha, I get it now. You're both implying both the law and government are beyond reproach. Sigh...

Obviously the law isn't based on my opinions, did you really think I was saying that? My point is only that in this discussion of what we think the law should be, arguing that the current law is somehow more correct/moral only because it is the current law is a complete fallacy.

 

[HumblePie]

Quite the contrary, I'm not waiting for a court decision to justify my opinions. I disagree with the SCOTUS on a fair number of points.



Haha, I get it now. You're both implying both the law and government are beyond reproach. Sigh...

Obviously the law isn't based on my opinions, did you really think I was saying that? My point is only that in this discussion of what we think the law should be, arguing that the current law is somehow more correct/moral only because it is the current law is a complete fallacy.

And you seem to fail to understand what reproach means for this context.

Reproach is an opinion of which someone disagrees with someone or something else. EVERYTHING has reproachable if you are trying to give your artsy fartsy broad approach to the term in this legal standing. Which is why I narrowed down the word to two things. Your reproach, and legal reproach.

Your reproach of SCOTUS decisions or laws has a much weight as unicorn farts. When it comes to legal reproach of SCOTUS decisions, short of a massive civil war it isn't going to happen.

 

[Sheep221]

The constitution allows me to have my gun in the subway system. If you don't like it, tuff.

The constitution allows you to own a gun, but basically nothing else. Carrying and using the gun is subject to state law and it is also subject to where you specifically carry it, you can't bring your gun to the bank, store or public transportation vehicle, despite you have a right to own it. For example if you own a bike, that doesn't mean you can go with a bike into any building onto any floor just because you own it.
Or owning a dog doesn't help much in going with dogs to buildings where they are not allowed to go.

From MTA terms of service:

Section 1050.8 Weapons and other dangerous instruments.
(a) No weapon, dangerous instrument, or any other item intended for use as a weapon may be carried in or on any facility or conveyance. This provision does not apply to law enforcement personnel and persons to whom a license for such weapon has been duly issued and is in force (provided in the latter case the weapon is concealed from view). For the purposes hereof, a weapon or dangerous instrument shall include, but not be limited to, a firearm, switchblade knife, gravity knife, boxcutter, straight razor or razor blades that are not wrapped or enclosed in a protective covering, sword, shotgun or rifle. (b) No explosives or other highly combustible materials, or radioactive materials, may be carried on or in any facility or conveyance, except as authorized by the Authority. (c) Subject to other provisions of the law, this section shall not apply to a rifle or shotgun which is unloaded and carried in an enclosed case, box or other container which completely conceals the item from view and identification as a weapon.

 

[classy]

1) Not really. The powers granted by the Constitution are for the federal level. The specific Bill of Rights, which was later added, was suppose to preempt state, federal, or any local government laws that would try to trample those rights.

2 & 3) You do realize the Founding Fathers wrote many other documents about their ideas and opinions of laws and the Constitution that are far less "ambiguous" in their context. That they spelled out what they envision and that argument you are making is basically nonsense in light of all that other information they have put to paper. You realize this right?

The founding fathers didn't know about glocks or the holy grail of killing dozens cheaply, the AK 47. I guarantee they would have said "oh hell no" lol and wrote that constitution differently 🙂.

 

[videogames101]

And you seem to fail to understand what reproach means for this context.

Reproach is an opinion of which someone disagrees with someone or something else. EVERYTHING has reproachable if you are trying to give your artsy fartsy broad approach to the term in this legal standing. Which is why I narrowed down the word to two things. Your reproach, and legal reproach.

Your reproach of SCOTUS decisions or laws has a much weight as unicorn farts. When it comes to legal reproach of SCOTUS decisions, short of a massive civil war it isn't going to happen.

I don't think you read my post. We are not discussing what the law is. We are discussing what we believe the law should be.

You are calling my use of the word reproach "artsy fartsy", and I don't understand why. I am using a definition that I believe is clear to both of us. If it is not, I would be happy to clarify, although you laid it out just fine. I would appreciate if you didn't attack my position by using condescending terms for my use of language without any basis.

Essentially, in this context you know exactly what I mean by reproach, and trying to obfuscate that by comparing it to "legal reproach" isn't contributing anything to this discussion. Perhaps if we were arguing over what the current law is, your point might have some relevance. However that is not the case.

Now if you'd like to respond, please read my post before doing so.

 

[HumblePie]

I don't think you read my post. We are not discussing what the law is. We are discussing what we believe the law should be.

You are calling my use of the word reproach "artsy fartsy", and I don't understand why. I am using a definition that I believe is clear to both of us. If it is not, I would be happy to clarify, although you laid it out just fine. I would appreciate if you didn't attack my position by using condescending terms for my use of language without any basis.

Essentially, in this context you know exactly what I mean by reproach, and trying to obfuscate that by comparing it to "legal reproach" isn't contributing anything to this discussion. Perhaps if we were arguing over what the current law is, your point might have some relevance. However that is not the case.

Now if you'd like to respond, please read my post before doing so.

Reproach = disagreement.

You stated that I should do stand up comedy if I don't think SCOTUS decisions are above reproach. I stated in return that any personal reproach you may have is meaningless. That only legal reproach would matter, and there is none that can be leveraged at SCOTUS decisions. There is a difference there that you seem to fail to understand.

 

[brandonb]

The constitution allows you to own a gun, but basically nothing else. Carrying and using the gun is subject to state law and it is also subject to where you specifically carry it, you can't bring your gun to the bank, store or public transportation vehicle, despite you have a right to own it. For example if you own a bike, that doesn't mean you can go with a bike into any building onto any floor just because you own it.
Or owning a dog doesn't help much in going with dogs to buildings where they are not allowed to go.

From MTA terms of service:

I disagree. You see. The constitution says the rights will not be infringed for the people to keep and bear arms.

Here is what WIKI says:

In the United States, the right to keep and bear arms is also an enumerated right specifically protected by the U.S. Constitution and many state constitutions[3] such that people have a personal right to own arms for individual use, and a right to bear these same arms both for personal protection and for use in a militia.[4]

It does not say at all: "You can own a gun, but nothing else." It actually very specifically says what you may do with your arms.

So I'm not allowed to defend myself in a bank? Where do robbers go when they want money? The bank. So I can't defend myself in an area which has a higher degree of danger?

There may be a law out there that says you can't do it, and I may get arrested. But I could also say they were violating my civil rights and preventing me from protecting myself which was granted to me by the 2nd amendment.

 

[videogames101]

Reproach = disagreement.

You stated that I should do stand up comedy if I don't think SCOTUS decisions are above reproach. I stated in return that any personal reproach you may have is meaningless. That only legal reproach would matter, and there is none that can be leveraged at SCOTUS decisions. There is a difference there that you seem to fail to understand.

Are you reading these posts?

What do you mean by meaningless? How can my opinion not matter in a discussion of opinions? In this context it has plenty of meaning.

Let me lay this out, tell me where I lose you.


1. We are not discussing what the law is, as that is not decided by AT posters.

2. This thread is a discussion of our personal opinions about what the law should be.

3. Therefore, any "personal reproach" of US law is relevant and meaningful in this discussion.

 

[schneiderguy]

How could this happen? Libruls told me that they don't want to take my guns :|

 

[unokitty]

In 1995 there were an estimated 200 million guns in private hands. Today, there are around 300 million—about a 50 percent jump. The US population, now over 314 million, grew by about 20 percent in that period. At this rate, there will be a gun for every man, woman, and child before the decade ends. --Mother Jones[/QUOTE]

New York's plan to make citizens safer involves confiscating 500 long guns and holding photo ops with politicians and practice hand grenades?

If you want, you are welcome to feel safer.

But to me it just feels like more security theater.

Uno

 

[Atomic Playboy]

3) The Constitution is filled with lots of ambiguous wording. But I'm sure there are many of us that have crystal balls in which we can channel the thoughts of the Founding Fathers to back up our personal interpretations of the Constitution.

I don't know why we get so hung up on what the founding fathers wanted. The founding fathers wrote the Constitution to be a living document that could be updated as seen fit by a changing population, and that was brilliant on their part. Because the Constitution, as originally written, said that only white land-owning males could vote and black people could be kept as slaves. Obviously we no longer care what the founding fathers thought about those issues; why do we care what their thoughts were about specific gun control regulations? Can't we come up with those things ourselves without trying to guess how Jefferson or Adams would have framed the debate?

Strict Constitutionalists are like Biblical creationists; they can't update their thinking when new information comes to light, and that shows a dangerous, fanatical level of devotion. Is it wrong to place faith in a document of such importance as the Constitution or the Bible? No, of course not. But it must be tempered with the understanding that views can change over time. Jefferson's views on 18th century firearms are as meaningless to this present debate as an ancient Hebrew explanation of where humans originated is to modern science.

And before anyone accuses me of being a gun-grabbing liberal, I've long supported the right of people to own whatever firearms they choose. I don't believe that access to the tool is inherently dangerous, it's the person wielding it. Keeping guns out of the hands of everyone because some people would do evil is like keeping alcohol out of the hands of everyone because some people have no self-control; we shouldn't punish law-abiding citizens for the illusion of safety.

 

[echo4747]

Well it is called the SAFE act right? So obviously it keeps people safe by keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. Criminals always obey the law especially to be compliant with SAFE.

SAFE act? stands for: Second Ammendendment Freedom Enfringement act

 

[Daverino]

I disagree. You see. The constitution says the rights will not be infringed for the people to keep and bear arms.

Here is what WIKI says:

In the United States, the right to keep and bear arms is also an enumerated right specifically protected by the U.S. Constitution and many state constitutions[3] such that people have a personal right to own arms for individual use, and a right to bear these same arms both for personal protection and for use in a militia.[4]

The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

However, you cannot lie in court (perjury), you cannot incite people to violence, some instances of obscenity are banned, you cannot use other people's speech as your own, and you cannot phone in a false bomb threat.

You also cannot own child pornography.

Rights as written by the Constitution can be restricted by law so long as the Supreme Court upholds it. In the case of weapon carry laws, the SC has been consistent that that is a state regulatory issue. Only in the case of Washington DC, where ownership itself was banned, did the SC step in.

 

[Sheep221]

I disagree. You see. The constitution says the rights will not be infringed for the people to keep and bear arms.

Here is what WIKI says:

In the United States, the right to keep and bear arms is also an enumerated right specifically protected by the U.S. Constitution and many state constitutions[3] such that people have a personal right to own arms for individual use, and a right to bear these same arms both for personal protection and for use in a militia.[4]

It does not say at all: "You can own a gun, but nothing else." It actually very specifically says what you may do with your arms.

So I'm not allowed to defend myself in a bank? Where do robbers go when they want money? The bank. So I can't defend myself in an area which has a higher degree of danger?

There may be a law out there that says you can't do it, and I may get arrested. But I could also say they were violating my civil rights and preventing me from protecting myself which was granted to me by the 2nd amendment.

I know but listen, world is institutioned, banks, transport authorities, companies, even homes, all these are organizations ruled separately by their respective owners/rulers and if you want to get in you must basically comply to that. For example if I declare that guns in my house are banned, it means you can't bring guns to my house despite it is your constitutional right, you can actually do it and nothing will happen to you beside that you won't be allowed to stay in for example. Same goes for transport or bank, well in reality if you have pistol or knife in bottom of your backpack, no one will really give a fuck but if for example driver spots that you carry a weapon he can throw you out, same goes with bank or store etc. This is done not really because of intentionally making you defenseless but to prevent bus look like a military truck from inside.

 

[1prophet]

500 notices in a city with 8 million. And that's 500 more guns than I want around.

Right now the homicide rate in NYC is down to the rate we saw in the 1950s. Crime across the board is down. I like the fact that when I'm on a subway platform with my 1,000 closest friends that they're not packing heat. If you want your guns, by all means, move the hell away.

Safe for who, you or the minorities that are constantly harassed and searched by the police violating their liberty so you can enjoy your feeling of security.

NEW YORK (AP) — The nation's largest police department illegally and systematically singled out large numbers of blacks and Hispanics under its stop-and-frisk policy, a federal judge ruled Monday while appointing an independent monitor to oversee major changes, including body cameras on some officers.


Mayor Michael Bloomberg said he would appeal the ruling, which was a stinging rebuke to a policy he and the New York Police Department have defended as a life-saving, crime-fighting tool that helped lead the city to historic crime lows. The legal outcome could affect how and whether other cities employ the tactic.


"The city's highest officials have turned a blind eye to the evidence that officers are conducting stops in a racially discriminatory manner," U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin wrote in her ruling. "In their zeal to defend a policy that they believe to be effective, they have willfully ignored overwhelming proof that the policy of targeting 'the right people' is racially discriminatory."

 

[BoberFett]

2) There wasn't a standing army at first and states had a need to be able to raise militias to protect their and the country's interests. With that in mind, you might imagine that the framers would write the 2nd amendment with that in mind. The states could regulate their own militias as they saw fit. I don't think the framers had anything in mind along the lines of a private militia.

Clearly that's why they chose the specific words "the right of the people". Because as well all know, "the right of the people to be secure in their persons" doesn't apply to individuals, it only means that state government offices can't be searched without reason. And there's simply no way "the right of the people to peaceably assemble" could have been meant to apply to indviduals. Again, it was referring to state governments. States are allowed to have legislatures and assembly peaceably, but there's simply no basis for allowing just ANYBODY to gather in one place to protest.

 

[Matt1970]

See this is the bullshit I cannot stand.

In NYC people don't carry. At all. Anywhere.

Now supposedly that would mean I would be surrounded by criminals with guns: murdering, raping and stealing with abandon because I cannot defend myself. However the opposite is true. The city is very safe. Generally speaking, people don't want to murder, rape and steal from each other here.

What part of the city are you in?

 

[SaurusX]

I wonder where Chicago is on that "safest cities" list.... Similar gun laws as NYC, correct? They should be near the top! There must be something wrong with the list.