Why Should I trust Gun Control Advocates when my rights are being infringed on?

[martybegan]

I bring this up in every thread about gun control, and not one gun control advocate comes up with an answer that satisfies me.

Why should I support more gun control laws, when currently I cannot get even a revolver to keep in my own home without spending 3-6 months and over $1,000 to get the NYPD to approve of me owning one?

Why should I have to fill out multiple forms, be subjected to an interview, and have to spend so much money to get even the most basic type of handgun out there?

Why should I agree to "compromise" when my 2nd amendment rights are already being violated, by the NYPD, the government of the city of New York, and all the judges who have seen fit to consider these restrictions "constitutional"

 

[NYcarbineer]

I bring this up in every thread about gun control, and not one gun control advocate comes up with an answer that satisfies me.

Why should I support more gun control laws, when currently I cannot get even a revolver to keep in my own home without spending 3-6 months and over $1,000 to get the NYPD to approve of me owning one?

Why should I have to fill out multiple forms, be subjected to an interview, and have to spend so much money to get even the most basic type of handgun out there?

Why should I agree to "compromise" when my 2nd amendment rights are already being violated, by the NYPD, the government of the city of New York, and all the judges who have seen fit to consider these restrictions "constitutional"

Use your Constitution. Go to court.

 

[martybegan]

I bring this up in every thread about gun control, and not one gun control advocate comes up with an answer that satisfies me.

Why should I support more gun control laws, when currently I cannot get even a revolver to keep in my own home without spending 3-6 months and over $1,000 to get the NYPD to approve of me owning one?

Why should I have to fill out multiple forms, be subjected to an interview, and have to spend so much money to get even the most basic type of handgun out there?

Why should I agree to "compromise" when my 2nd amendment rights are already being violated, by the NYPD, the government of the city of New York, and all the judges who have seen fit to consider these restrictions "constitutional"

Use your Constitution. Go to court.

It has been to court numerous times, and the judges here keep saying it is "A-OK".

You did not answer if you think the above situation is acceptable or not, and that is what I am looking for.

 

[Kosh]

I bring this up in every thread about gun control, and not one gun control advocate comes up with an answer that satisfies me.

Why should I support more gun control laws, when currently I cannot get even a revolver to keep in my own home without spending 3-6 months and over $1,000 to get the NYPD to approve of me owning one?

Why should I have to fill out multiple forms, be subjected to an interview, and have to spend so much money to get even the most basic type of handgun out there?

Why should I agree to "compromise" when my 2nd amendment rights are already being violated, by the NYPD, the government of the city of New York, and all the judges who have seen fit to consider these restrictions "constitutional"

Use your Constitution. Go to court.

The far left does not understand the Constitution that is why we have this problem..

But what do you expect from these religious nuts who voted for worse than Bush twice..

State level laws vary significantly in their form, content, and level of restriction. Forty-four states have a provision in their state constitutions similar to the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects the right to keep and bear arms. The exceptions are California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York. In New York, however, the statutory civil rights laws contain a provision virtually identical to the Second Amendment.[1][2] Additionally, the U.S. Supreme Court held in McDonald v. Chicago that the protections of the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms for self-defense in one's home apply against state governments and their political subdivisions.[3]

Gun laws in the United States by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Fueri]

You shouldn't.

If anyone thinks a small this or that will be the end of it, they are waking from a very long coma. All the anti gun folks are looking to do is make some inroads wherever they can on this issue, as has happened on many other issues, so they can move onto the next thing.

They'll never be satisfied. If I had to guess at what they're really up to it's breaking the 2nd amendment altogether, if not outright repealing it in the long term. I know the left will wail that this is not at all what is going on here, but the liberal talking heads are chattering away already on this issue and I doubt the administration is very far behind in what they'd like to see down the road.

Nothing but creeping gradualism, IMO.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I bring this up in every thread about gun control, and not one gun control advocate comes up with an answer that satisfies me.

Why should I support more gun control laws, when currently I cannot get even a revolver to keep in my own home without spending 3-6 months and over $1,000 to get the NYPD to approve of me owning one?

Why should I have to fill out multiple forms, be subjected to an interview, and have to spend so much money to get even the most basic type of handgun out there?

Why should I agree to "compromise" when my 2nd amendment rights are already being violated, by the NYPD, the government of the city of New York, and all the judges who have seen fit to consider these restrictions "constitutional"

Use your Constitution. Go to court.

It has been to court numerous times, and the judges here keep saying it is "A-OK".

You did not answer if you think the above situation is acceptable or not, and that is what I am looking for.

You keep claiming your 2nd Amendment rights are being violated, but since the laws you object to have passed SCOTUS scrutiny, you are pretty much only left with your personal opinion on the matter, which has no standing or authority.

 

[martybegan]

I bring this up in every thread about gun control, and not one gun control advocate comes up with an answer that satisfies me.

Why should I support more gun control laws, when currently I cannot get even a revolver to keep in my own home without spending 3-6 months and over $1,000 to get the NYPD to approve of me owning one?

Why should I have to fill out multiple forms, be subjected to an interview, and have to spend so much money to get even the most basic type of handgun out there?

Why should I agree to "compromise" when my 2nd amendment rights are already being violated, by the NYPD, the government of the city of New York, and all the judges who have seen fit to consider these restrictions "constitutional"

Use your Constitution. Go to court.

It has been to court numerous times, and the judges here keep saying it is "A-OK".

You did not answer if you think the above situation is acceptable or not, and that is what I am looking for.

You keep claiming your 2nd Amendment rights are being violated, but since the laws you object to have passed SCOTUS scrutiny, you are pretty much only left with your personal opinion on the matter, which has no standing or authority.

Plessey V Fergueson passed Scotus scrutiny, should it not have been overturned?

And the NY lawsuits have not made it to SCOTUS yet in light of Heller.

And you continue to ignore the actual question, do you agree with the NY laws and why?

Answer it.

 

[Auld Phart]

I bring this up in every thread about gun control, and not one gun control advocate comes up with an answer that satisfies me.

Why should I support more gun control laws, when currently I cannot get even a revolver to keep in my own home without spending 3-6 months and over $1,000 to get the NYPD to approve of me owning one?

Why should I have to fill out multiple forms, be subjected to an interview, and have to spend so much money to get even the most basic type of handgun out there?

Why should I agree to "compromise" when my 2nd amendment rights are already being violated, by the NYPD, the government of the city of New York, and all the judges who have seen fit to consider these restrictions "constitutional"

Use your Constitution. Go to court.

It has been to court numerous times, and the judges here keep saying it is "A-OK".

You did not answer if you think the above situation is acceptable or not, and that is what I am looking for.

You keep claiming your 2nd Amendment rights are being violated, but since the laws you object to have passed SCOTUS scrutiny, you are pretty much only left with your personal opinion on the matter, which has no standing or authority.

Plessey V Fergueson passed Scotus scrutiny, should it not have been overturned?

And the NY lawsuits have not made it to SCOTUS yet in light of Heller.

And you continue to ignore the actual question, do you agree with the NY laws and why?

Answer it.

May not be heard when it does reach SCOTUS.

Supreme Court denies assault weapons ban challenge

 

[martybegan]

I bring this up in every thread about gun control, and not one gun control advocate comes up with an answer that satisfies me.

Why should I support more gun control laws, when currently I cannot get even a revolver to keep in my own home without spending 3-6 months and over $1,000 to get the NYPD to approve of me owning one?

Why should I have to fill out multiple forms, be subjected to an interview, and have to spend so much money to get even the most basic type of handgun out there?

Why should I agree to "compromise" when my 2nd amendment rights are already being violated, by the NYPD, the government of the city of New York, and all the judges who have seen fit to consider these restrictions "constitutional"

Use your Constitution. Go to court.

It has been to court numerous times, and the judges here keep saying it is "A-OK".

You did not answer if you think the above situation is acceptable or not, and that is what I am looking for.

You keep claiming your 2nd Amendment rights are being violated, but since the laws you object to have passed SCOTUS scrutiny, you are pretty much only left with your personal opinion on the matter, which has no standing or authority.

Plessey V Fergueson passed Scotus scrutiny, should it not have been overturned?

And the NY lawsuits have not made it to SCOTUS yet in light of Heller.

And you continue to ignore the actual question, do you agree with the NY laws and why?

Answer it.

May not be heard when it does reach SCOTUS.

Supreme Court denies assault weapons ban challenge

The ones involving handguns may be different, as the ability to get a handgun is what Heller was all about. All the restrictions being placed in DC and Chicago are routinely being overturned each time the locals try to adhere to the rulings as limited as possible.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Why Should I trust Gun Control Advocates when my rights are being infringed on?"

Because the measures they support are Constitutional.

Your rights aren't being "infringed."

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I bring this up in every thread about gun control, and not one gun control advocate comes up with an answer that satisfies me.

Why should I support more gun control laws, when currently I cannot get even a revolver to keep in my own home without spending 3-6 months and over $1,000 to get the NYPD to approve of me owning one?

Why should I have to fill out multiple forms, be subjected to an interview, and have to spend so much money to get even the most basic type of handgun out there?

Why should I agree to "compromise" when my 2nd amendment rights are already being violated, by the NYPD, the government of the city of New York, and all the judges who have seen fit to consider these restrictions "constitutional"

Use your Constitution. Go to court.

It has been to court numerous times, and the judges here keep saying it is "A-OK".

You did not answer if you think the above situation is acceptable or not, and that is what I am looking for.

That's not what you asked in your thread title.

 

[martybegan]

I bring this up in every thread about gun control, and not one gun control advocate comes up with an answer that satisfies me.

Why should I support more gun control laws, when currently I cannot get even a revolver to keep in my own home without spending 3-6 months and over $1,000 to get the NYPD to approve of me owning one?

Why should I have to fill out multiple forms, be subjected to an interview, and have to spend so much money to get even the most basic type of handgun out there?

Why should I agree to "compromise" when my 2nd amendment rights are already being violated, by the NYPD, the government of the city of New York, and all the judges who have seen fit to consider these restrictions "constitutional"

Use your Constitution. Go to court.

It has been to court numerous times, and the judges here keep saying it is "A-OK".

You did not answer if you think the above situation is acceptable or not, and that is what I am looking for.

That's not what you asked in your thread title.

I asked the questions in the body of the post, which leads to the title question.

How about you answer the questions?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I bring this up in every thread about gun control, and not one gun control advocate comes up with an answer that satisfies me.

Why should I support more gun control laws, when currently I cannot get even a revolver to keep in my own home without spending 3-6 months and over $1,000 to get the NYPD to approve of me owning one?

Why should I have to fill out multiple forms, be subjected to an interview, and have to spend so much money to get even the most basic type of handgun out there?

Why should I agree to "compromise" when my 2nd amendment rights are already being violated, by the NYPD, the government of the city of New York, and all the judges who have seen fit to consider these restrictions "constitutional"

Use your Constitution. Go to court.

It has been to court numerous times, and the judges here keep saying it is "A-OK".

You did not answer if you think the above situation is acceptable or not, and that is what I am looking for.

You keep claiming your 2nd Amendment rights are being violated, but since the laws you object to have passed SCOTUS scrutiny, you are pretty much only left with your personal opinion on the matter, which has no standing or authority.

Plessey V Fergueson passed Scotus scrutiny, should it not have been overturned?

And the NY lawsuits have not made it to SCOTUS yet in light of Heller.

And you continue to ignore the actual question, do you agree with the NY laws and why?

Answer it.

False comparison fallacy.

"The Supreme Court is sometimes wrong" is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You shouldn't.

If anyone thinks a small this or that will be the end of it, they are waking from a very long coma. All the anti gun folks are looking to do is make some inroads wherever they can on this issue, as has happened on many other issues, so they can move onto the next thing.

They'll never be satisfied. If I had to guess at what they're really up to it's breaking the 2nd amendment altogether, if not outright repealing it in the long term. I know the left will wail that this is not at all what is going on here, but the liberal talking heads are chattering away already on this issue and I doubt the administration is very far behind in what they'd like to see down the road.

Nothing but creeping gradualism, IMO.

Ignorant nonsense and hyperbole.

Second Amendment jurisprudence is in its infancy, currently evolving, and it will continue to evolve for decades to come.

 

[martybegan]

I bring this up in every thread about gun control, and not one gun control advocate comes up with an answer that satisfies me.

Why should I support more gun control laws, when currently I cannot get even a revolver to keep in my own home without spending 3-6 months and over $1,000 to get the NYPD to approve of me owning one?

Why should I have to fill out multiple forms, be subjected to an interview, and have to spend so much money to get even the most basic type of handgun out there?

Why should I agree to "compromise" when my 2nd amendment rights are already being violated, by the NYPD, the government of the city of New York, and all the judges who have seen fit to consider these restrictions "constitutional"

Use your Constitution. Go to court.

It has been to court numerous times, and the judges here keep saying it is "A-OK".

You did not answer if you think the above situation is acceptable or not, and that is what I am looking for.

You keep claiming your 2nd Amendment rights are being violated, but since the laws you object to have passed SCOTUS scrutiny, you are pretty much only left with your personal opinion on the matter, which has no standing or authority.

Plessey V Fergueson passed Scotus scrutiny, should it not have been overturned?

And the NY lawsuits have not made it to SCOTUS yet in light of Heller.

And you continue to ignore the actual question, do you agree with the NY laws and why?

Answer it.

False comparison fallacy.

"The Supreme Court is sometimes wrong" is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

Says you? Mr Drive by drivel poster?

You run to the law when it suits you, and ignore it when it doesn't. None of your posts have any gravitas or bearing, nor do they answer the "why".

You are stuck in the rote of law and "because", nothing more.

 

[hunarcy]

I bring this up in every thread about gun control, and not one gun control advocate comes up with an answer that satisfies me.

Why should I support more gun control laws, when currently I cannot get even a revolver to keep in my own home without spending 3-6 months and over $1,000 to get the NYPD to approve of me owning one?

Why should I have to fill out multiple forms, be subjected to an interview, and have to spend so much money to get even the most basic type of handgun out there?

Why should I agree to "compromise" when my 2nd amendment rights are already being violated, by the NYPD, the government of the city of New York, and all the judges who have seen fit to consider these restrictions "constitutional"

Use your Constitution. Go to court.

It has been to court numerous times, and the judges here keep saying it is "A-OK".

You did not answer if you think the above situation is acceptable or not, and that is what I am looking for.

You keep claiming your 2nd Amendment rights are being violated, but since the laws you object to have passed SCOTUS scrutiny, you are pretty much only left with your personal opinion on the matter, which has no standing or authority.

And yet you feel perfectly justified in trying to impose your viewpoint concerning Citizens United on him as if you're an authority...why the double standard on your part?

 

[martybegan]

You shouldn't.

If anyone thinks a small this or that will be the end of it, they are waking from a very long coma. All the anti gun folks are looking to do is make some inroads wherever they can on this issue, as has happened on many other issues, so they can move onto the next thing.

They'll never be satisfied. If I had to guess at what they're really up to it's breaking the 2nd amendment altogether, if not outright repealing it in the long term. I know the left will wail that this is not at all what is going on here, but the liberal talking heads are chattering away already on this issue and I doubt the administration is very far behind in what they'd like to see down the road.

Nothing but creeping gradualism, IMO.

Ignorant nonsense and hyperbole.

Second Amendment jurisprudence is in its infancy, currently evolving, and it will continue to evolve for decades to come.

More Bullshit from USMB's chief pseduo-intellectual bullshitter.

The 2nd has been around for centuries, only recently has the concept been that law abiding citizens cannot be trusted with firearms.

Stop making shit up.

 

[Fueri]

You shouldn't.

If anyone thinks a small this or that will be the end of it, they are waking from a very long coma. All the anti gun folks are looking to do is make some inroads wherever they can on this issue, as has happened on many other issues, so they can move onto the next thing.

They'll never be satisfied. If I had to guess at what they're really up to it's breaking the 2nd amendment altogether, if not outright repealing it in the long term. I know the left will wail that this is not at all what is going on here, but the liberal talking heads are chattering away already on this issue and I doubt the administration is very far behind in what they'd like to see down the road.

Nothing but creeping gradualism, IMO.

Ignorant nonsense and hyperbole.

Second Amendment jurisprudence is in its infancy, currently evolving, and it will continue to evolve for decades to come.

My ass it is. If you don't think people with an agenda have enough common sense to not ask for the whole enchilada at once, and take what they can get today hoping for more tomorrow you are more than a bit obtuse about how any large social change comes about.

There plenty of folks walking around that would love to simply outlaw guns period. That is undeniable, not hyperbole, and they will continue to pursue their agenda no matter what small scale victories they may get here and there.