header pic

Area51 Board (non-moderated) at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' Scout-Tennessee a51 Crowd- Enjoy ROWDY discussion covering politics, religion, current events, and all things under the sun

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: Homeowner Behind Bars After Killing Two Intruders, Because He Used Gun

 (Read 2227 times)

Cincydawg

  • Ombudsman for the Secret Order of the Odd Fellows
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 37427
  • Liked:
You can own a long gun in NY state without any license or restriction.  Just as full auto is effectively limited nationwide, NY State has taken that quite a it further.  My guess is their laws would be struck down by SCOTUS, but that's another discussion.


Hightop77

  • Guest
You can own a long gun in NY state without any license or restriction.  Just as full auto is effectively limited nationwide, NY State has taken that quite a it further.  My guess is their laws would be struck down by SCOTUS, but that's another discussion.
For all practical purposes, there is no Second Amendment in New York.  

Cincydawg

  • Ombudsman for the Secret Order of the Odd Fellows
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 37427
  • Liked:
As I noted, we already have national restrictions on full auto obviously, so having SOME restrictions on gun ownership is "OK".  It's a matter of degree.

I know a lot of folks in upstate NY just ignore the laws from Albany, including the sheriffs.

Hightop77

  • Guest
As I noted, we already have national restrictions on full auto obviously, so having SOME restrictions on gun ownership is "OK".  It's a matter of degree.

I know a lot of folks in upstate NY just ignore the laws from Albany, including the sheriffs.
This guy ignored those laws too and is charged with a felony after defending himself with a simple handgun the government thinks he has no right to own.

Drew4UTk

  • Administrator
  • Team Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 6706
  • Liked:
again I say:  our 'rights' are often and sometimes methodically trampled.  to argue it without massive financial and influential backing, you'd have to wait for the perfect 'set', akin to a surfer straddling a board and staring at the horizon for literally years, and while waiting for just the right sequence.  

you'd have to have a sympathetic judge with more interest in right than political favor just to get it out of municipal court... you'd have to have most likely a law degree and pass a BAR exam in order to practice law, as paying an attorney to navigate the legalese would be too much burden for the lay person, especially considering the amount of time and dedication this effort would require.  

but.... 

it isn't only the 2A stomped on.  it's pretty much all of the BoR.  at will they are stomped on.  The BoR, if i understood what i believe to be the spirit after reading several books over the years concerning that convention- conceptualized the BoR, originally 12 iirc, as "Granted by virtue of birth, recognized and protected by the Constitution".  That was the intent without qualifications.  

@MCWTwerps, you may want to learn something about what you speak/type before doing so- you continue to demonstrate your ignorance.  you likely wouldn't face as much opposition here as you do even if you continued disagreeing so long as your' commentary was accurate. 

I'm not certain any of the Rights protected under the BoR has suffered as much scrutiny as the 2nd.  They've attacked it by letter, by spirit, by comparing meanings of words over the ages compared to current, and read into it whole schemes that take more than a mental leap to believe.  and... they continue to fail.

in complete honesty- i'm not even certain why there is a SCOTUS anymore.  all there needs to be is someone who can translate to Spanish, French, German, Creole, Hebrew, and perhaps Farsi and Arabic for those who can't read or understand English.... I get the first 100 years of interpretation, and then again post CW... Slavery, Suffrage, and Civil Rights is the only good SCOTUS has done in alteration of the original document.  further interpretation, by my reckoning, is about twisting to suit political purpose and in spite of the dramatic rise of this country and it's evident peak and subsequent fall, all on the 'interpretation' on an increasingly political gaggle of justices.  If I were to remove the tongue from my cheek and make the above comment true by my own reckoning, I would offer that SCOTUS has done a good job of regulating during milestones of this nation- curtailing the robber barons to be one example... another to be somewhat restraining the rise and power of the tech barons.   so their influence isn't just social- but economics as well.  there comes a point, though, when they've reached to limits of their purpose.  I'm thinking that is about now... stick AI in their place and let it determine what was meant and what was said  (and reconcile the two) in the Constitution.         


Hightop77

  • Guest
What amazes me about our "rights" is that we sent the US military to Little Rock to kill our fellow citizens if need be over school desegregation and we sent the US Marshals to a little Kentucky town to arrest a woman who refused to issue a same sex marriage license, so why don't we send the military to places like NY and California to enforce the Second Amendment, which is actually a legitimate right?

ATexasVol

  • Global Moderator
  • Team Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 5663
  • Liked:
It's a restricted right, no question, but it's a matter of degree.  New Yorkers still have the right to own firearms, it's just restricted.

And yes, "regulated" back in the day had a different meaning.

The 2nd amendment reads "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."  

I would say the gentleman's right to keep and bear arms has been infringed by the State of NY.   

HK_Vol

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 23988
  • Liked:
Hey Tex,

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 

You missed the next sentence:

"except when leftist judges and legislators rule otherwise...."

/snark

ATexasVol

  • Global Moderator
  • Team Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 5663
  • Liked:
HighTop said it best.   It's not a right if you have to ask the government for permission.    

I guess a lot of people on this board would be okay with "limits" on unreasonable search and seizure.   Maybe NY will decide to randomly ransack people's homes without a warrant and without cause unless the homeowners apply for an exemption.  Maybe you could pay an annual fee to the state for a permit?   


mcwterps1

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3152
  • Liked:
@MCWTwerps, you may want to learn something about what you speak/type before doing so- you continue to demonstrate your ignorance.  you likely wouldn't face as much opposition here as you do even if you continued disagreeing so long as your' commentary was accurate.          
Please. I realize the constitution left a lot to be deciphered for future endeavors, growth, and change, but changing the meaning of a word completely to justify the mass production of "God given weapons" is not only ignorance, as you call it, but blatant disregard for reality and a stubborn stance on infringing on others rights to not be killed by weapons of quick depletion.

Pretty sure the founders would have thought it ill-advised for civilians to be able to purchase quick fire weapons and call it a gift from God. 

Stupid. 

I own several, but I'm not a psychopath when it comes to weaponry. Anyone who gets off in full force tangents about weapons, probably shouldn't be allowed to have them.....IMO.

Hightop77

  • Guest
Please. I realize the constitution left a lot to be deciphered for future endeavors, growth, and change, but changing the meaning of a word completely to justify the mass production of "God given weapons" is not only ignorance, as you call it, but blatant disregard for reality and a stubborn stance on infringing on others rights to not be killed by weapons of quick depletion.

Pretty sure the founders would have thought it ill-advised for civilians to be able to purchase quick fire weapons and call it a gift from God.

Stupid.

I own several, but I'm not a psychopath when it comes to weaponry. Anyone who gets off in full force tangents about weapons, probably shouldn't be allowed to have them.....IMO.

And here is a great example of the kind of ignorance and stupidity we are faced with today regarding the Constitution and our rights.

Drew4UTk

  • Administrator
  • Team Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 6706
  • Liked:
Bingo, hightop.  terps has been assimilated and doesnt even know it. We're losing rights with defined rhythm and folks like him are so "enlightened" they dont even realize their parroting precisely what is being presented as some sort of "new" norm,... As phantom says "forward".  

DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 24168
  • Liked:
Please. I realize the constitution left a lot to be deciphered for future endeavors, growth, and change, but changing the meaning of a word completely to justify the mass production of "God given weapons" is not only ignorance, as you call it, but blatant disregard for reality and a stubborn stance on infringing on others rights to not be killed by weapons of quick depletion.

Pretty sure the founders would have thought it ill-advised for civilians to be able to purchase quick fire weapons and call it a gift from God.

Stupid.

I own several, but I'm not a psychopath when it comes to weaponry. Anyone who gets off in full force tangents about weapons, probably shouldn't be allowed to have them.....IMO.
The constitution is a legal document. It does not change meaning over time unless it is amended. 
President Harry S. Truman said: “The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount.  The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings…  If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.”

HK_Vol

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 23988
  • Liked:
Good reminder from Trey Gowdy



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Pt8TwE1IYo


"You cannot deprive people of their rights without due process"

 

Support the Site!