No one is going to take your guns

[daveman]

funny thing though

the law only targeted law abiding citizens

(those that obeyed the registration law originally)

the criminal who did not obey the law is content

in the knowing that the city does not know they

they have firearms

We should get rid of any laws that some people break?

That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard on this forum.

Only the Unconstitutional ones like the one the letter represents

So, you feel all laws should be enforced?

-Geaux

Yes, he does...except for immigration, border security, and voting laws.

 

[daveman]

Isn't it amazing how many times people say that, and how they are always proven wrong?

There’s nothing in the OP citing a case where a citizen’s gun was ‘confiscated’ and a hearing conducted subsequently to determine if the taking was warranted, and if warranted what the just compensation would be in accordance with the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause.

Such a case would be part of the public record and available to the OP to document.

Absent a sample case as proof, no ‘confiscation’ has taken place.

What’s not amazing is the OP is once again wrong, and once again only succeeded in exhibiting his ignorance.

So, the cops mailing a letter that says "bring your guns to the cops or else" is not proof of intention to confiscate.

 

[Mac1958]

Obama's Gun Record Basically Consists Of Expanding Gun Owners' Rights - Business Insider

Major Garrett: Obama has expanded, not reduced gun rights - CBS News

So what is it with right wingers? Tardation or inbreeding that makes them hate Obama for no reason? The GOP being 90% white can't have anything to do with it. They claim they aren't "racist".

Oh look – here is our resident partisan to shed some republican derangement syndrome on this thread.

Notice that the OP and the linked page did not address Obama once. They didn’t reference Obama, the POTUS or anything to do with Obama’s policies at all. Perhaps this is because THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OBAMA.

The PC Police don't need actual reasons to play the race card.

It's as natural as breathing for them.

.

 

[S.J.]

funny thing though

the law only targeted law abiding citizens

(those that obeyed the registration law originally)

the criminal who did not obey the law is content

in the knowing that the city does not know they

they have firearms

We should get rid of any laws that some people break?

That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard on this forum.

How many criminals will this law disarm? And no, I'm not talking about criminals created solely by this asinine law. I'm talking about criminals from before this law.

Answer the question honestly. How many criminals will this law disarm?

None. They don't want to disarm criminals, not yet. They still need them to commit acts of violence so they can justify taking second amendment rights away from the law-abiding citizens. Can't have them defending themselves against government troops.

 

[daveman]

Turns out they lied.

Sherrie Questioning All: The gun grabbers always say "Registration does not lead to Confiscation." Hmm... Seems New York is proving that WRONG - Confiscating weapons, registered in state. Letter proving it

Yet another rightist, ignorant or a liar.

Your childish unwillingness to accept reality is your own damn problem, boy.

From the NYPD website:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/permits/ny_safe_act_letter_re_lcafd_2013_05_v9.pdf

"...must be immediately surrendered..."

 

[Sarah G]

Nobody's going to take them but maybe they'll be a lot harder to get and carry if all of this random shooting continues.

 

[daveman]

Nobody's going to take them but maybe they'll be a lot harder to get and carry if all of this random shooting continues.

Ummm...that's what this thread is about. They ARE taking them.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Obama's Gun Record Basically Consists Of Expanding Gun Owners' Rights - Business Insider

Major Garrett: Obama has expanded, not reduced gun rights - CBS News

So what is it with right wingers? Tardation or inbreeding that makes them hate Obama for no reason? The GOP being 90% white can't have anything to do with it. They claim they aren't "racist".

Funny, I didn't mention Obama, or race. Yet you still felt a need to accuse me of hating Obama because he is black.

Not to mention that I have told you repeatedly that I am not a Republican.

Dean comes on here with his incendiary drive by posts just to get a rise out of people.
Dean believes in nothing. He is nothing. He is a flyspeck with a keyboard.
I imagine him as the loudmouth little jerk who as kids we all hated because he would yap like a poodle and when he got the shit beaten out of him would run to his mommy and claim "but mommy, I didn't do anything"...

thats why he was Tea Bagged in High School by his fellow Republicans in front of the girls.....now we know why he is like he is.....

 

[Sarah G]

Nobody's going to take them but maybe they'll be a lot harder to get and carry if all of this random shooting continues.

Ummm...that's what this thread is about. They ARE taking them.

They are? Says who besides the blogger that you claim knows something in the OP?

 

[WinterBorn]

Turns out they lied.

Sherrie Questioning All: The gun grabbers always say "Registration does not lead to Confiscation." Hmm... Seems New York is proving that WRONG - Confiscating weapons, registered in state. Letter proving it

You're objecting to law enforcement enforcing a law against possessing an illegal weapon?

lol, classic.

When they make a gun illegal simply because it is capable of holding more than 5 rounds (even bolt action rifles?) you have created a law designed to remove guns, not to remove any specific type of gun.

 

[Geaux4it]

There are some things worth fighting for. My guns, and my countries way of life, are (2) of them.

-Geaux

 

[WinterBorn]

Those guns are illegal in New York City, you dope.

That's how stupid the law is, which is the bigger point

-Geaux

No, the point is that you people don't want guns registered because you want it easier for people to conceal the fact that they own illegal guns.

And if the people of a city or a state want a certain gun law, so what? At least by your own standards, so what?

You rightwingers are always harping about states rights and the 10th amendment and all that crap...

I will assume that you know very little about firearms, so let me help you understand.

The .22 long rifle is basically the most common small caliber around. It is tiny. There are pellet guns that come close to the stopping power of the mighty .22lr.

The idea that holding 5 rounds makes the guns intrinsically more dangerous is ridiculous. This is not going after high capacity magazines. This is going after every gun that is not a single shot. While there might be a few guns that hold only 3 or 4 rounds, the ban of guns capable of holding 5 rounds or more bans the overwhelming majority of guns, including those that date back to the old west.

It is nonsense.

 

[Geaux4it]

I agree with the title of the OP's thread.

No one is going to take my guns, or my fellow Americans for that matter

-Geaux

 

[bitterlyclingin]

Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto advised his fellow members of the Japanese Imperial General Staff that they could not hope to invade America because they "Would be met by a rifle behind every blade of grass". Thus advised, Japan made its war plans accordingly, planning assaults and invasions strategically at the perimeters of America's defensive line.
Comrade Barack is well aware of Admiral Yamamotos warning and knows full well in order to make the way safe for conquest by his Army of Muslim Holy Warriors he has to completely disarm America eliminating the possibility of his Muslim Holy Warriors meeting an American defending his country, his family, his freedom, his civilization, and his religion with a rifle behind every blade of grass.

 

[g5000]

Anyone who believes anything Obama promises is an idiot.

What does this New York law have to do with Obama?

 

[g5000]

Here is the actual New York state government page about this new development:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/permits/ny_safe_act_letter_re_lcafd_2013_05_v9.pdf

Possessing magazines that can hold ten rounds is now illegal. There is no grandfather provision.

Rifles and shotguns which fit the law's definition of an "assault weapon", or have feeding devices which exceed five round capacity, are now illegal to possess and must now be surrendered or invoiced.


Chilling stuff.

 

[g5000]

Nobody's going to take them but maybe they'll be a lot harder to get and carry if all of this random shooting continues.

It's the first step toward confiscation. If that is not obvious to you, then you are a fool.

 

[Geaux4it]

Nobody's going to take them but maybe they'll be a lot harder to get and carry if all of this random shooting continues.

I would rather take my chances in ignoring any carry laws for my own safety and well interest of my family. Where one can not obtain a CCW, I suggest they use their judgement in carrying anyway, laws be dammed. Odds are law abiding citizens can easily carry without a permit and detection by not only law enforcement, but also the criminal element. Odds are you will have to defend yourself before every worrying about LEO.

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6

-Geaux

 

[daveman]

Nobody's going to take them but maybe they'll be a lot harder to get and carry if all of this random shooting continues.

Ummm...that's what this thread is about. They ARE taking them.

They are? Says who besides the blogger that you claim knows something in the OP?

The NYPD says.

DO keep up.

 

[Plasmaball]

District of Columbia vs Heller

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Justice Scalia, Opinion of the Court

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., PETITIONERS v.
DICK ANTHONY HELLER

on writ of certiorari to the united states court ofappeals for the district of columbia circuit

[June 26, 2008]
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.

We consider whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

Respondent Dick Heller is a D. C. special police officer authorized to carry a handgun while on duty at the Federal Judicial Center. He applied for a registration certificate for a handgun that he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He thereafter filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on the registration of handguns, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits the carrying of a firearm in the home without a license, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of “functional firearms within the home.” App. 59a. The District Court dismissed respondent’s complaint, see Parker v. District of Columbia, 311 F. Supp. 2d 103, 109 (2004). The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, construing his complaint as seeking the right to render a firearm operable and carry it about his home in that condition only when necessary for self-defense,2 reversed, see Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F. 3d 370, 401 (2007). It held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right. See id., at 395, 399–401. The Court of Appeals directed the District Court to enter summary judgment for respondent.

We granted certiorari. 552 U. S. ___ (2007).


From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment : Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” 8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s arms-bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.” 2 Collected Works of James Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds. 2007) (citing Pa. Const., Art. IX, §21 (1790)); see also T. Walker, Introduction to American Law 198 (1837) (“Thus the right of self-defence [is] guaranteed by the [Ohio] constitution”); see also id., at 157 (equating Second Amendment with that provision of the Ohio Constitution). That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.9 These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia.

Scalia also stated the state has the right to force you to lock up your gun in a case..

No he didn't. What he actually said is that the state can make a law that requires it, and then punish you if you break it, and they catch you.

ok so you agree with me, thank you for proving me right...again.