Multi-clip gun owners sent packing as NYPD begins to enforce 2010 law

[gonefishinagain]

Multi-clip gun owners sent packing as NYPD begins to enforce 2010 law | Fox News

Read More

 

[Father of four]

The police will come for their gun or magazines? There must be a mistake.

Haven't we heard that the majority of the LEOs are Pro-2nd Amendment and Pro-Constitution? They would not really enforce the anti-2nd and anti-Constitution laws now would they?

 

[Father of four]

"The New York City Police Department is taking aim at owners of certain shotguns and rifles, telling them all long guns with more than a five-round capacity must be turned in, altered or taken out of town."


No, that cant be.

 

[Martini_Up]

The police will come for their gun or magazines? There must be a mistake.

Haven't we heard that the majority of the LEOs are Pro-2nd Amendment and Pro-Constitution? They would not really enforce the anti-2nd and anti-Constitution laws now would they?

Not in NYC. Most people there, including the LEO's are NOT pro-freedom or pro U.S. Constitution in general.

 

[Grunwald]

Not in NYC. Most people there, including the LEO's are NOT pro-freedom or pro U.S. Constitution in general.

Given that NYC is a leftist sewer and the center of bankster cartel, why were we so ticked off at Al-Quida for taking down the very buildings that house these bansters?

 

[Martini_Up]

Given that NYC is a leftist sewer and the center of bankster cartel, why were we so ticked off at Al-Quida for taking down the very buildings that house these bansters?

Because George Bush told us to be.... and if the renewed AWB were to have crossed his desk, he said he would have signed it into law.

 

[deen_ad]

The Center for American Progress released a report in April linking states with 'weak' gun laws and a high level of gun violence.

The Second Amendment, says, "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."

Gun advocates interpret that to mean individuals have the right to possess guns, while those opposed say the law is antiquated and its misinterpretation puts Americans in danger.

Well they missed that one too as SCOTUS says it's an individual right to own guns.


Deen
NRA Life Member, Benefactor Level
"Defender of Freedom" award
NRA Recruiter
Second Amendment Foundation Member
Washington Arms Collectors Member
Arms Collectors of SW Washington Member

"Having a gun is like a parachute, if you need one and don't have it you may never need it again"

 

[Father of four]

Well they missed that one too as SCOTUS says it's an individual right to own guns.

Deen

I wonder if SCOTUS thinks its an individuals Constitutional right to have their firearms loaded and concealed?

Yeah, that would probably be asking to much. We can firearms, just not loaded or concealed, that is the Multnomah county way.

 

[Father of four]

BTW, The Constitution of The United States of America and The Bill of Rights mean squat when any state, county or city can regulate your rights away.

 

[Father of four]

:gun08: .... "Hey stop that! You don't have a permit to do that."

 

[Martini_Up]

BTW, The Constitution of The United States of America and The Bill of Rights mean squat when any state, county or city can regulate your rights away.

And that is called, TYRANNY.

 

[cookie]

And that is called, TYRANNY.

Most of the voting population seem to like it that way,,Obama 2016!!

 

[fd15k]

Most of the voting population seem to like it that way,,Obama 2016!!

I'm pretty sure if all the people who didn't vote at all in 2012 would write in Mickey Mouse, we would have a president with much bigger ears today.

<broken link removed>

 

[fd15k]

I think there are a lot of inaccuracies in that picture. For example, Gandhi.

Gandhi practiced what he preached, even when violently attacked. His autobiography contains an account of such an incident that occurred during a trip to South Africa. Gandhi was traveling on a ship from India to Natal province with 800 other passengers, including his family. Racial discrimination in the province was rampant. Once white residents learned that Gandhi was aboard the ship, they became furious. They accused him of denouncing Natal whites while he was in India and bringing Indian immigrants to settle in the province as provocation.

Gandhi was innocent of both charges, but the residents attacked him when he disembarked from the ship anyway. He was hit with punches, kicks, stones and bricks, but refused to retaliate and simply kept walking (to the best of his ability). The mob was subdued only when the wife of the town's police superintendent opened her parasol and stood between Gandhi and the mob.

What Gandhi really thought about guns - Waging Nonviolence

 

[fd15k]

Really? What did Gandi himself write in his Autobiography?


"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."- Gandhi And, yes I've read this quote In Context. Nonetheless, the point being made is that Indians would be bearing arms.

The quote comes from an autobiography by Gandhi, entitled "Mohandas Gandhi, an Autobiography." On page 446.
HERE: <broken link removed>

And, this:

"Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor," Gandhi wrote in his work The Doctrine of the Sword.

Gandhi knew all too well the value of a people who could defend themselves be it strictly on their own behalf, or fighting side by side WITH the British Empire, at that time.



Nonetheless, if it makes you feel much better, please remove Gandhi's photo from that line up in your mind's eye and still, what do you have??



Which begs the question... What's you point?

That's actually what the article I've linked is talking about - taking particular quotes out of context. It also talks about how one's views evolved over time.

Point is there are a lot of anecdotes and inaccuracies circulated on behalf of the pro-gun cause, while all that is needed is adherence to the Constitution and the legal framework around it.

 

[fd15k]

So take Gandhi out of the picture and still, what do you have?

Another interesting fact is that Stalin did not actually disarm Soviet people - they were never armed. One of the major disarmaments in Russian (Russian Empire at the time) history took place in 1906. In 1907 by imperial decree the rules were slightly softened, allowing handgun ownership to the officers of the Imperial Army. After revolution in 1917 the criminalization continued, with the first law being passed in 1918. Technically a lot of Soviet people were armed as the result of WWII, but they turned most of those weapons in without being forcefully disarmed. The way I see it, Stalin's tyrannical regime has little to do with the gun control.

 

[fd15k]

Well, now your in my territory. Stalin enforced a no gun policy, (except for his henchman) plain and simple.
Having not only had a grandfather who was an officer in the Imperial Guard, pre-revolution and during the revolution, but also family who were shot in the back of the heads, and left in the dirt many years later, and some who (we think) rotted to death in the Gulags, and I can tell you that when you state, "without being forcefully disarmed" you're a bit full of crap, and you most likely know that. Forcefully? Considering that Stalin was murdering his fellow Russians by the millions (millions more than Hitler), and you did not know if your neighbor, or even your best buddy from childhood would turn you in, there really wasn't much need for force, now was there?

Just what is your point?

You're not the only person here who "had a grandfather". Now my point is that various historic anecdotes aren't necessarily useful to the cause. Gun culture (as are many other things) in US is very unique, and doesn't require a comparison to any other nation.

 

[U201491]

Well, now your in my territory. Stalin enforced a Communist no gun policy, (except for his henchman) plain and simple. And, what is your point?
Having not only had a grandfather who was an officer in the Imperial Guard, pre-revolution (and many relatives who owned guns at that time) and during the revolution, but also family who were shot in the back of the heads, and left in the dirt many years later, and some who (we think) rotted to death in the Gulags, and I can tell you that when you state, "without being forcefully disarmed", and you most likely know that. Forcefully? Considering that Stalin was murdering his fellow Russians by the millions (millions more than Hitler), and you did not know if your neighbor, or even your best buddy from childhood would turn you in, there really wasn't much need for force, now was there?

Just what is your point? You seem to be dancing around what you really want to state.

 

[U201491]

Most of the voting population seem to like it that way,,Obama 2016!!

I just puked. How could you even put that in print :-/

 

[rdt]

ghandi is on record, circa the battle for Indian independence, acknowledging the futility of nonviolence (carrot) without the implementation of violence (stick). other criticisms of ghandi aside (pretentious misogynist racist classist jerk) he was no dummy when it came to recognizing real material social/political conditions and strategizing accordingly. in other words he believed in freedom too much to throw away certain circumstantially useful tactics for mere ideological interpretations. iirc, there's something where ghandi admonishes people not to judge those physically fighting the British.

as far as Stalin, if he wasn't anti gun he would have reformed gun laws. just because he inherited an effective and genocidal system of control doesn't mean he is morally superior to his predecessors. on the contrary. furthermore, he was a part of the party when those systems were created so.

as far as the constitution and the American people today, when you read the papers the framers wrote and what they were reading, it gets clearer that they 1 expected social systems (family, church, community, whatever) to do a lot of the "Americanizing" of each new generation 2 they did not see this country as a Government, but as a People, who would in turn create a small utilitarian orginization, an employee or subcontractor, to more cheaply do some few needful things. 3 they had no illusions about government, and intended the revolution to be perpetual in spirit and therefore hopefully rarely so desperate as to need violent insurrection but knowing that the constant real possibility of insurrection would keep the government and moneyed interests from attempting a coup. they knew the government could never be a check on itself so the 2nd amendment is like a hint, that the 4th branch of government cannot be government but must be the people armed and organized for themselves and not for it.