How NYC is using its Weapons Registration database

[oldguy]

Guns != speech. There is no other reason to have a gun other than to use it for its intended purpose: to kill.

Holy Crap, what a pile of bullshit!

I've shot literally tens of thousands of rounds. I hunt with them. I target practice with them. I train with them, for the day some asshole comes into my house uninvited. I've never come close to killing anyone with my guns.

Go Blazers

 

[oldguy]

All I'm suggesting is that people should complain about the law. The enforcement of the law is just those folks doing their jobs.

Classic. If I complain that the government is passing laws that can/will result in them taking my guns, I'm a paranoid, right wing, gun nut. I'm told that no one wants to take my guns. Then, they pass a law, take the guns, and it's all, "So what? They passed a law." Screw that.

If liberals are so hell bent on saving lives, why don't they rally to stop the murdering of hundreds of thousands of babies each year?

Go Blazers

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Holy Crap, what a pile of bullshit!

I've shot literally tens of thousands of rounds. I hunt with them. I target practice with them. I train with them, for the day some asshole comes into my house uninvited. I've never come close to killing anyone with my guns.

Go Blazers

Hunting = killing.

What are you going to do with the gun when someone comes to your house uninvited? give it to them as a present? No, you're going to shoot them in the hopes of killing them.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Classic. If I complain that the government is passing laws that can/will result in them taking my guns, I'm a paranoid, right wing, gun nut. I'm told that no one wants to take my guns. Then, they pass a law, take the guns, and it's all, "So what? They passed a law." Screw that.

If liberals are so hell bent on saving lives, why don't they rally to stop the murdering of hundreds of thousands of babies each year?

Go Blazers

I said you should complain about the law. Complain about it all you want. Registration is just one piece of the puzzle that serves a purpose other than potentially assisting in disarming the public before the tyrannical Obama regime... does... something. Replaces all the white Santas with black ones? I don't even know.

 

[oldguy]

Hunting = killing.

What are you going to do with the gun when someone comes to your house uninvited? give it to them as a present? No, you're going to shoot them in the hopes of killing them.

I think you forgot to boldface the "I target practice with them." That proves your statement to be bullshit.

Target shooting, which is far and away what most people do with their guns, is NOT killing.

If some asshole comes in my house, hopefully he will put up his hands when I tell him to, lay face down on the floor spreadeagled, and wait for the police while I stand on his nuts with a gun pointed at him. That would NOT be killing.

I know lots of people that own guns. None have ever shot anyone, much less ever killed anyone. Nor do they ever want to kill anyone with their weapon. They just like target shooting.

Go Blazers

 

[MARIS61]

I'm not trying to fix anything, I'm just trying to figure out why the registration of guns is unconstitutional.... But how is being required to register a gun you legally possess unconstitutional? I'm not getting it.

Amendment II

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.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

I think you forgot to boldface the "I target practice with them." That proves your statement to be bullshit.

Target shooting, which is far and away what most people do with their guns, is NOT killing.

If some asshole comes in my house, hopefully he will put up his hands when I tell him to, lay face down on the floor spreadeagled, and wait for the police while I stand on his nuts with a gun pointed at him. That would NOT be killing.

I know lots of people that own guns. None have ever shot anyone, much less ever killed anyone. Nor do they ever want to kill anyone with their weapon. They just like target shooting.

Go Blazers

lol, nice "proof"

I actually considered boldfacing that part, but then I figured that anybody could make the connection that practicing shooting a target is practicing to use the gun for the purpose that it was designed for: to hurl tiny pieces of metal through the air at a high rate of speed in order to cause great bodily harm to living beings. You said it yourself: "I train with them for the day some asshole comes into my house uninvited."

And yes, I'm sure plenty of people shoot at targets for sport. That doesn't change what the firearm was designed to do.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Amendment II

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.

That's not explaining it to me at all, that's quoting the poorly written document word for word. That's like speaking loudly and slowly to someone who doesn't speak your language and expecting them to understand.

 

[Denny Crane]

That's not explaining it to me at all, that's quoting the poorly written document word for word. That's like speaking loudly and slowly to someone who doesn't speak your language and expecting them to understand.

You have to be willing to understand when it's the same language. Otherwise you're just shouting wrong things, as you are.

 

[oldguy]

Guns != speech. There is no other reason to have a gun other than to use it for its intended purpose: to kill.

That is what you said. It was horseshit when you said it, and it's still horseshit.

I've said that many peoples' REASON TO HAVE A GUN IS FOR TARGET PRACTICE....NOT TO KILL. Are you really to thick to understand that?

I know people who shoot targets that keep their weapons locked in a safe, with ammo stored in a different place. IT WOULD NOT BE USEFUL FOR SHOOTING AN INTRUDER, and that's the way they want it. They don't want to live with the knowledge they killed someone.

Some people buy guns as a financial investment. That can be collectible guns, or it can be modern arms. That would be another reason to legally own guns other than to kill with. Some people own guns because they inherited them from their relatives that have passed on. They like the durable reminder of that person. It comforts them. They may not even own ammo for them.

So, to sum up. Some people have guns to shoot targets, for investments, and as a reminder of loved ones passed. THAT MEANS THERE ARE OTHER REASONS TO HAVE A GUN OTHER THAN TO USE IT TO KILL. That makes your statement a bunch of crap.

NYC collecting the guns from a previously assembled data base of registered guns PROVES the very thing that gun owners have said would happen for fucking years. Registration is a precursor to confiscation.

But, feel free to keep your fingers plugged firmly in your ears and keep yelling LALALALALALALA.

You didn't mention why bleeding hearts for so concerned for the gun deaths each each, but don't blink at the idea of murdering 100K babies each year. If gun registration saves just one life, it's worth it. But 100k murdered babies each year aren't worth taking up as a cause, right?

Go Blazers

 

[donkiez]

That is what you said. It was horseshit when you said it, and it's still horseshit.

I've said that many peoples' REASON TO HAVE A GUN IS FOR TARGET PRACTICE....NOT TO KILL. Are you really to thick to understand that?

I know people who shoot targets that keep their weapons locked in a safe, with ammo stored in a different place. IT WOULD NOT BE USEFUL FOR SHOOTING AN INTRUDER, and that's the way they want it. They don't want to live with the knowledge they killed someone.

Some people buy guns as a financial investment. That can be collectible guns, or it can be modern arms. That would be another reason to legally own guns other than to kill with. Some people own guns because they inherited them from their relatives that have passed on. They like the durable reminder of that person. It comforts them. They may not even own ammo for them.

So, to sum up. Some people have guns to shoot targets, for investments, and as a reminder of loved ones passed. THAT MEANS THERE ARE OTHER REASONS TO HAVE A GUN OTHER THAN TO USE IT TO KILL. That makes your statement a bunch of crap.

NYC collecting the guns from a previously assembled data base of registered guns PROVES the very thing that gun owners have said would happen for fucking years. Registration is a precursor to confiscation.

But, feel free to keep your fingers plugged firmly in your ears and keep yelling LALALALALALALA.

You didn't mention why bleeding hearts for so concerned for the gun deaths each each, but don't blink at the idea of murdering 100K babies each year. If gun registration saves just one life, it's worth it. But 100k murdered babies each year aren't worth taking up as a cause, right?

Go Blazers

I really think you two are just arguing perspective. It’s easy to connect a gun with death, thats what it was designed for. Also an easy connection to make in saying that every time you aim and pull the trigger you are practicing killing someone or something, just like I could say that every time I masturbate I am practicing having sex. However you are also correct in saying that you are not practicing dealing harm, you are relieving stress, enjoying a past time, or whatever reason you have for being a gun guy. In my opinion you are both right.

I do have a question though. I know Chicago is often used as an example of how gun laws don’t work. New York has similar laws in place, most of them are more strict than Chicago, and NY has seen a decline in violent crimes and murders over the years. What’s the difference between those two cities?

 

[oldguy]

I really think you two are just arguing perspective. It’s easy to connect a gun with death, thats what it was designed for. Also an easy connection to make in saying that every time you aim and pull the trigger you are practicing killing someone or something, just like I could say that every time I masturbate I am practicing having sex. However you are also correct in saying that you are not practicing dealing harm, you are relieving stress, enjoying a past time, or whatever reason you have for being a gun guy. In my opinion you are both right.

I do have a question though. I know Chicago is often used as an example of how gun laws don’t work. New York has similar laws in place, most of them are more strict than Chicago, and NY has seen a decline in violent crimes and murders over the years. What’s the difference between those two cities?

I don't know what the difference is, but I do have a question. If the violent crime rate is low and declining in NYC, why do they need to confiscate the legally owned guns of it's citizens?

Go Blazers

EDIT: Btw, I don't see how you can think we are both right. He claims there is only one reason to own a gun. I say that is absolutely a bunch of crap, and have given reasons it is crap.

 

[donkiez]

I don't know what the difference is, but I do have a question. If the violent crime rate is low and declining in NYC, why do they need to confiscate the legally owned guns of it's citizens?

Go Blazers

EDIT: Btw, I don't see how you can think we are both right. He claims there is only one reason to own a gun. I say that is absolutely a bunch of crap, and have given reasons it is crap.

I don't know about low and declining as of now, and I'm not looking at any statistics right now, Im just comparing it to back in the '80s and '90s when it was murder capital #1. Something changed there since then, and I wouldn't give all the credit to gun restrictions.... not sure if I would give any credit to gun restrictions actually.

Ok then you are technically right, that is not the ONE reason to own a gun, but arguing that point is kind of a tangent I think.

When it comes to gun restrictions the issue I see is how do you differentiate between thug life in Chicago and rural Oregon? I would feel more comfortable with you owning a bazooka than them owning a kitchen knife.

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't know about low and declining as of now, and I'm not looking at any statistics right now, Im just comparing it to back in the '80s and '90s when it was murder capital #1. Something changed there since then, and I wouldn't give all the credit to gun restrictions.... not sure if I would give any credit to gun restrictions actually.

Ok then you are technically right, that is not the ONE reason to own a gun, but arguing that point is kind of a tangent I think.

When it comes to gun restrictions the issue I see is how do you differentiate between thug life in Chicago and rural Oregon? I would feel more comfortable with you owning a bazooka than them owning a kitchen knife.

Violent crime of all kinds has declined throughout the country. Gun restrictions have made no difference. The reverse appears to be true: carry permits lead to less crime.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

That is what you said. It was horseshit when you said it, and it's still horseshit.

I've said that many peoples' REASON TO HAVE A GUN IS FOR TARGET PRACTICE....NOT TO KILL. Are you really to thick to understand that?

I know people who shoot targets that keep their weapons locked in a safe, with ammo stored in a different place. IT WOULD NOT BE USEFUL FOR SHOOTING AN INTRUDER, and that's the way they want it. They don't want to live with the knowledge they killed someone.

Some people buy guns as a financial investment. That can be collectible guns, or it can be modern arms. That would be another reason to legally own guns other than to kill with. Some people own guns because they inherited them from their relatives that have passed on. They like the durable reminder of that person. It comforts them. They may not even own ammo for them.

So, to sum up. Some people have guns to shoot targets, for investments, and as a reminder of loved ones passed. THAT MEANS THERE ARE OTHER REASONS TO HAVE A GUN OTHER THAN TO USE IT TO KILL. That makes your statement a bunch of crap.

Actually, yeah, you're right on all that. To my detriment, I tend to start with overly hyperbolic statements and then delve into the details. If I had re-read what I typed before I posted, I would have ended up changing it for sure. I do see that there are other reasons to own a gun, as you pointed out.

What I should have said was that firearms are designed for a single purpose: to kill. Kind of like I already did:

I actually considered boldfacing that part, but then I figured that anybody could make the connection that practicing shooting a target is practicing to use the gun for the purpose that it was designed for: to hurl tiny pieces of metal through the air at a high rate of speed in order to cause great bodily harm to living beings. You said it yourself: "I train with them for the day some asshole comes into my house uninvited."

And yes, I'm sure plenty of people shoot at targets for sport. That doesn't change what the firearm was designed to do.

And back to you:

NYC collecting the guns from a previously assembled data base of registered guns PROVES the very thing that gun owners have said would happen for fucking years. Registration is a precursor to confiscation.

This just in: correlation = causation.

But, feel free to keep your fingers plugged firmly in your ears and keep yelling LALALALALALALA.

Okay. LALALALALALALA

You didn't mention why bleeding hearts for so concerned for the gun deaths each each, but don't blink at the idea of murdering 100K babies each year. If gun registration saves just one life, it's worth it. But 100k murdered babies each year aren't worth taking up as a cause, right?

Go Blazers

LALALALALALALA-- wait, what?

Come on man, I'm sitting here trying my damnedest to get some explanation on constitutional law and you're bringing up murdering 100k babies. Reel it in a little.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2/amendment.html

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

You have to be willing to understand when it's the same language. Otherwise you're just shouting wrong things, as you are.

Cripes. Apparently asking legitimate questions and attempting to explore a topic is "shouting wrong things." Please forgive.

Anyway, the constitution may be in English, but a lot changes in 250 years. The second amendment is far from crystal clear.

 

[Denny Crane]

Cripes. Apparently asking legitimate questions and attempting to explore a topic is "shouting wrong things." Please forgive.

Anyway, the constitution may be in English, but a lot changes in 250 years. The second amendment is far from crystal clear.

The words "shall not be infringed" only appear once in the entire constitution and amendments. The structure of the sentence was highly debated and altered several times along the way to being agreed to and ratified. There was a clause removed that did not require people to own guns, and another removed that allowed for religious people to not be forced to serve. To say that it is far from crystal clear is blindness. LALALALALA stuff.

The reason the words were added (shall not be infringed) was to prevent the right from being chipped away over time by the government. This NY law does exactly that - chip away at the right, or infringe upon it. It's sole purpose is to intimidate potential gun owners or to restrict ownership.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2/amendment.html

This is the annotations by findlaw.com, one of the oldest and most trusted legal sources online. Since you don't parse our prose, maybe you can parse theirs. It's a linguistics thing or something.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2/amendment.html

Yeah, I know how the Supreme Court interprets it. I don't agree. Shocking, I know.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

The words "shall not be infringed" only appear once in the entire constitution and amendments. The structure of the sentence was highly debated and altered several times along the way to being agreed to and ratified. There was a clause removed that did not require people to own guns, and another removed that allowed for religious people to not be forced to serve. To say that it is far from crystal clear is blindness. LALALALALA stuff.

A sentence from 250-year-old English that the Supreme Court had to deconstruct and make a ruling on what it meant? That's what you would call "crystal clear?" Agree to disagree, I guess.

The reason the words were added (shall not be infringed) was to prevent the right from being chipped away over time by the government. This NY law does exactly that - chip away at the right, or infringe upon it. It's sole purpose is to intimidate potential gun owners or to restrict ownership.

The issue isn't infringement, the issue is the purpose of the guns. I would maintain that the purpose of the guns is for a well-regulated militia to have and use in a military conflict, whether that's overseas or against a tyrannical American government. Saying the second amendment protects every instance of gun ownership feasible is ignoring half the amendment... and pretty much all the historical context behind it.

 

[Denny Crane]

It ain't broke. No need to fix it.

Found this bit in the Heller decision that you might enjoy.

A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If “bear arms” means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of self-defense” or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the mad hatter.

 

[barfo]

There's something very religious about guns. Not sure why.

I don't believe that legal gun ownership is necessary in any way whatsoever. Given the abilities of our military and police, one can live a happy safe life in the US without owning a gun.

On the other hand, if one wants to ban machinery that kills lots of people, one would look first at automobiles, not guns. Guns in the hands of responsible, sane people don't kill at a particularly high rate.

Compromise isn't a dirty word. It's the basis of our society. Refusing to compromise is not, in the long term, a successful strategy. You might win a few battles, but eventually, you just get marginalized and ignored.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

There's something very religious about the constitution. Not sure why.

I don't believe that legal gun ownership is necessary in any way whatsoever. Given the abilities of our military and police, one can live a happy safe life in the US without owning a gun.

On the other hand, if one wants to ban machinery that kills lots of people, one would look first at automobiles, not guns. Guns in the hands of responsible, sane people don't kill at a particularly high rate.

Compromise isn't a dirty word. It's the basis of our society. Refusing to compromise is not, in the long term, a successful strategy. You might win a few battles, but eventually, you just get marginalized and ignored.

barfo

Fixed it for you.

 

[barfo]

Fixed it for you.

Having a fixation on the constitution is another religious thing. It wasn't handed down from God, you know. Some guys wrote it 200+ years ago. It's not reasonable to expect it to explain every detail of 21st century life. Things have changed a bit since then.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Having a fixation on the constitution is another religious thing. It wasn't handed down from God, you know. Some guys wrote it 200+ years ago. It's not reasonable to expect it to explain every detail of 21st century life. Things have changed a bit since then.

barfo

Amend it.

It doesn't have to explain every detail of 21st century life. It only has to restrict government from taking away your right to free speech (among others). I would guess you care about that one. So it's a who's ox is gored thing, right?

 

[barfo]

Amend it.

It doesn't have to explain every detail of 21st century life. It only has to restrict government from taking away your right to free speech (among others). I would guess you care about that one. So it's a who's ox is gored thing, right?

Not sure what your point is. If there was a good reason to restrict free speech, I guess I'd be all for it. Like if they said I couldn't shout 'fire' in a theater any more, because people might get killed in the stampede.

So yes, I think amending the 2nd amendment is going to be the ultimate solution here. I'm just saying that the gun lobby might be better off agreeing to some common sense restrictions in law rather than having the restrictions written into the constitution.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Not sure what your point is. If there was a good reason to restrict free speech, I guess I'd be all for it. Like if they said I couldn't shout 'fire' in a theater any more, because people might get killed in the stampede.

So yes, I think amending the 2nd amendment is going to be the ultimate solution here. I'm just saying that the gun lobby might be better off agreeing to some common sense restrictions in law rather than having the restrictions written into the constitution.

barfo

Who decides if there's a good reason to take away our rights?

Obama? Romney? Obama because Romney did it in Massachusetts?

I don't want any part of either one of them (or anyone else) deciding for me. Deciding your rights, no problem.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

It ain't broke. No need to fix it.

It is broke. NYC is taking people's guns!

Found this bit in the Heller decision that you might enjoy.

A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If “bear arms” means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of self-defense” or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the mad hatter.

I did enjoy that. Thank you.

 

[Denny Crane]

Not sure what your point is. If there was a good reason to restrict free speech, I guess I'd be all for it. Like if they said I couldn't shout 'fire' in a theater any more, because people might get killed in the stampede.

So yes, I think amending the 2nd amendment is going to be the ultimate solution here. I'm just saying that the gun lobby might be better off agreeing to some common sense restrictions in law rather than having the restrictions written into the constitution.

barfo

Oh yeah. How do you feel about some "common sense" restrictions to abortion rights?

Any room for compromise?