Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
August 01, 2014, 05:34:37 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: New York Gun Owners refusing to register weapons under Cuomo's Edict  (Read 456 times)
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7813


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« on: January 26, 2013, 02:27:22 PM »

http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/14322-gun-owners-refuse-to-register-under-new-york-law

Report to moderator   Logged
Montague
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 11840



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: January 26, 2013, 02:51:33 PM »

Quote
Doctors belittled the provision, too, noting that it could discourage people who otherwise would seek help from talking to healthcare providers out of fear that the police could show up at their door and confiscate their weapons. "The people who arguably most need to be in treatment and most need to feel free to talk about these disturbing impulses, may be the ones we make least likely to do so," Dr. Paul Appelbaum at Columbia University told the Associated Press. Critics say the provision will turn New York into a "psychiatric police state."


Glad to see some common sense from the medical community for a change.
Report to moderator   Logged
_aj_
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 5561


FUCK IT, HALO IS NEVER GETTIN OUT


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: January 27, 2013, 02:09:34 PM »

If NY goes full civil disobedience, imagine how TX will react.
Report to moderator   Logged
littledumbells
Getbig III
***
Gender: Male
Posts: 668



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: January 29, 2013, 06:57:27 AM »

If NY goes full civil disobedience, imagine how TX will react.


   Most likely calm, cool and without much of the hysteria
Report to moderator   Logged
dario73
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6105


Getbig!


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: January 29, 2013, 08:18:39 AM »

Among the primary concerns is that, with registration, authorities would know where to go for confiscation, an idea already proposed openly by Governor Cuomo himself.

Under the disguise of public safety, the libtards' true objective is the destruction of the 2nd amendment.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7813


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: January 29, 2013, 08:28:41 AM »

Among the primary concerns is that, with registration, authorities would know where to go for confiscation, an idea already proposed openly by Governor Cuomo himself.

Under the disguise of public safety, the libtards' true objective is the destruction of the 2nd amendment.


I trust Schumer to do the right thing 
Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3750


I'm about to froth at the mouth!


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: January 29, 2013, 08:55:33 AM »

Among the primary concerns is that, with registration, authorities would know where to go for confiscation, an idea already proposed openly by Governor Cuomo himself.

Even if he did propose such a thing, I don't see how he could ever put it into practice. Even through there is no explicit guarantee in the State Constitution about the right to bear arms, there is an explicit guarantee in the Constitution of the United States. Even if they passed a law in New York State banning all weapons, the law would be null and void - the Federal Constitution would supersede that law. Even if they passed a Constitutional Amendment to the State Constitution making weapons illegal, that Amendment would also be null and void - the Federal Constitution would still supersede it.

Confiscation of weapons isn't happening. Period.
Report to moderator   Logged
dario73
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6105


Getbig!


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: January 29, 2013, 01:02:22 PM »

Confiscation of weapons isn't happening. Period.


Really?

No one thought that the government would have the right to force its citizens to buy health insurance. But, the Supreme Court allowed it as a tax, eventhough the White House flip flopped on whether it's a penalty or a tax. And how can a tax be used to force people to buy anything? It goes against what a tax is supposed to be and intention of the constitution.

The Constitution means nothing to libs. The country, with the ever increasing third world idiots seeping through its borders, has now moved away from it.

Right now the Constitution is on the same level as toilet paper.

I won't be surprised when confiscation begins.
Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3750


I'm about to froth at the mouth!


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: January 29, 2013, 03:39:38 PM »

Really?

Yes. Really.


No one thought that the government would have the right to force its citizens to buy health insurance. But, the Supreme Court allowed it as a tax, eventhough the White House flip flopped on whether it's a penalty or a tax. And how can a tax be used to force people to buy anything? It goes against what a tax is supposed to be and intention of the constitution.

That's not true. A lot of people - from both sides - thought that an argument passing off the abomination known as ObamaCare as a tax could theoretically pass constitutional muster; they just thought it unlikely. That you didn't doesn't mean shit.

Besides, there is a big difference between what the Constitution intended (which is, arguably, up to debate) and what the Constitution explicitly states. And the Constitution explicitly states: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." No amount of gymnastics short of a new Amendment will change that text or its meaning, something that became crystal clear in Heller.


The Constitution means nothing to libs. The country, with the ever increasing third world idiots seeping through its borders, has now moved away from it.

Right... the problem is "third-world idiots". Roll Eyes


Right now the Constitution is on the same level as toilet paper.

Really? Finally! Now then, is the chance to get rid of that pesky First Amendment, which is a lot more annoying than the Second. After all, not everybody has a gun but everybody does have something much more dangerous - and annoying: a mouth (literal and figurative). And the problem with mouths is that the idiots tend to fire them off all the time. And that is very frustrating to those of us with two brain-cells to rub together.


I won't be surprised when confiscation begins.

You won't be. But only because it's not gonna happen. Or wait... does that mean that if it doesn't happen you will be? If so, I predict that you will be more and more surprised with every passing day, your surprise growing without bounds until you finally die. I wonder who'll be happy then?
Report to moderator   Logged
Emmortal
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5564


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: January 29, 2013, 05:44:35 PM »


Right... the problem is "third-world idiots". Roll Eyes


You obviously don't live in California, New Mexico, Arizona, or Texas =)
Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3750


I'm about to froth at the mouth!


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: January 29, 2013, 06:10:50 PM »

You obviously don't live in California, New Mexico, Arizona, or Texas =)

Obviously - I live in Nevada, which is far removed from all the problems of "third world idiots."
Report to moderator   Logged
Skip8282
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6370



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: January 29, 2013, 06:17:51 PM »

Crystal clear in Heller?  lol

Not even close.  5-4 decision and can change.  Tons of room for interpretation.
Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3750


I'm about to froth at the mouth!


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: January 29, 2013, 06:28:36 PM »

Crystal clear in Heller?  lol

It is crystal clear.


Not even close.  5-4 decision and can change.  Tons of room for interpretation.

Don't be confused: that a decision could, in theory, change doesn't make it any less clear. The Court's majority opinion was crystal clear and left very little room for interpretation. If and when the Court decides to take another look at this decision, we can revisit the issue. Until then... stare decisis.
Report to moderator   Logged
Skip8282
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6370



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: January 29, 2013, 06:34:05 PM »

It is crystal clear.


Don't be confused: that a decision could, in theory, change doesn't make it any less clear. The Court's majority opinion was crystal clear and left very little room for interpretation. If and when the Court decides to take another look at this decision, we can revisit the issue. Until then... stare decisis.


Oh...so now you're trying to claim that what you meant by clear was that Scalia and crew wrote well.


lol

Always fun watching a child like you squirm...pathetically desperate to look for any way out.  lol
Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3750


I'm about to froth at the mouth!


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: January 29, 2013, 06:36:52 PM »

Oh...so now you're trying to claim that what you meant by clear was that Scalia and crew wrote well.

What other interpretation could there be? The Court's decision, which is what counts and is binding, is the opinion of the majority. It's a fact that in Heller the Court was crystal clear.

I'll add something else: in your earlier post you said that the decision was 5-4 and thus subject to change; that's true, but then again every decision is. Even a 9-0 decision could, potentially, change in the future if the Court decided to re-examine it. There's no magic vote "limit" above which a decision by the Court becomes immutable from future changes by the Court. Even changes to the Constitution aren't immutable as our silly flirtation with Temperance showed.


lol

Always fun watching a child like you squirm...pathetically desperate to look for any way out.  lol

I'm glad that you are amused, although it's weird to see one be amused by one's own silly antics.
Report to moderator   Logged
Skip8282
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6370



View Profile
« Reply #15 on: January 29, 2013, 06:42:29 PM »

No, kid...this is your claim:

"No amount of gymnastics short of a new Amendment will change that text or its meaning, something that became crystal clear in Heller. "

Yes, it's meaning can be changed with a simple revisit by the court.


You're trying too hard.  lol  way way too hard, lol

Stick with trying to argue heart surgery is simple.  lol


Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3750


I'm about to froth at the mouth!


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: January 29, 2013, 07:58:35 PM »

No, kid...this is your claim:

"No amount of gymnastics short of a new Amendment will change that text or its meaning, something that became crystal clear in Heller. "

That's 100% accurate. No amount of gymnastics by the Court will change the text of the Constitution. And no amount of gymnastics will change the actual meaning of those words or the intent behind them.


Yes, it's meaning can be changed with a simple revisit by the court.

No. The previous Court decision can be changed in a potential revisit by a future Court. It's highly unlikely, but possible. But such a decision would change neither the text nor its actual meaning. It would just give it a new interpretation. There's a word used to describe people who view the Constitution's meaning as something perpetually shifting, to suit the times. You should look it up sometime.

Such a revision, of course, would not be simple. No revisit of a Supreme Court case is simple, much less one like Heller. Especially when the plain text meaning of the text in the Constitution is crystal clear (which was, really, the whole point of Scalia's opinion).


You're trying too hard.  lol  way way too hard, lol

Stick with trying to argue heart surgery is simple.  lol

Simple can mean many different things. Heart catheterization/stenting and bypassing are both conceptually simple procedures; that doesn't mean they are simple or particularly easy to perform, although to be fair there are a number of surgeries that a whole less simple.
Report to moderator   Logged
Skip8282
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6370



View Profile
« Reply #17 on: January 29, 2013, 08:23:48 PM »

"no amount of gymnastics will change the actual meaning of those words or the intent behind them"


Yeah...that's why there's no argument about it.  Roll Eyes

As I've said in the past, your childish semantics are pointless - and no I did not intend to diminish the difficulty of the Supreme Court revisiting.

If you've got an adult argument...hit me with it.

Otherwise, like I said, stick with trying to claim heart surgery is simple, lol....luv how you've now tried to change it yet again.  ahh..funny but pathetic.

Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3750


I'm about to froth at the mouth!


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: January 29, 2013, 08:37:04 PM »

"no amount of gymnastics will change the actual meaning of those words or the intent behind them"


Yeah...that's why there's no argument about it.  Roll Eyes

As I've said in the past, your childish semantics are pointless - and no I did not intend to diminish the difficulty of the Supreme Court revisiting.

If you've got an adult argument...hit me with it.

Otherwise, like I said, stick with trying to claim heart surgery is simple, lol....luv how you've now tried to change it yet again.  ahh..funny but pathetic.



 Roll Eyes
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!