posted
I find it hard to believe that there is no way to hold an individual accountable for illegally possessing a firearm without impinging on either the 5th or the 2nd.
As to your other examples of how registration led to persecution for ownership. They are valid. I would not want law abiding owners weapons being confiscated because the state representatives 'changed their mind' after a list had been compiled. If registration were to take place there would have to be some sort of protections written into the law on behalf of the gun owners.
the person having the guns had no right to own them to begin with. they were prosecuted for OTHER things like illegally owning one...
it's just the fact of not registering could not be added to the list of charges..
why does it seem logical to bundle laws? is killing someone with a gun worse than killing someone with a car or an OD of drugs? the person is still just as dead...
should Busweiser be responsible for every alcohol related death?
no-ones rights were infringed it's just that the problem is, it always comes back to when they ban guns only criminals will have them,a dn they will..
why make honest people have to do more and give up more rights because of criminals.
all of the registration in the world won't stop people from being killed.
suicides are quoted as criminal activity when gun stats are presented.
you may have deleted them, but the gun banners don't.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: transfer titles?
this is specifically going to be fought to the bitter end.
why?
history.
i've posted this before, i'll repost it.
when NYC started to ban gun ownership? they first told people to register them and they promised that this would not lead to taking them away.
but they did exactly that. they used the registration lists to make sure that people who registered them got rid of them.
not only was the plan full of lies, but the people who got gun permits at first were criminal freinds of influential people.
registering guns does not keep criminals from getting guns either.
The Sullivan Act, also known as the Sullivan Law, is a controversial gun control law in New York State. Upon first passage, the Sullivan Act required licenses for New Yorkers to possess firearms small enough to be concealed. Possession of such firearms without a license was a misdemeanor, carrying them was a felony. The possession or carrying of weapons such as brass knuckles, sandbags, blackjacks, bludgeons or bombs was a felony, as was possessing or carrying a dagger, "dangerous knife" or razor "with intent to use the same unlawfully". Named for its primary legislative sponsor, state senator Timothy Sullivan, a notoriously corrupt Tammany Hall politician, it dates to 1911, and is still in force, making it one of the older existing gun control laws in the United States.
For handguns, the Sullivan Act qualifies as a may issue act, meaning the local police have discretion to issue a concealed carry license, as opposed to a shall issue act, in which state authorities must give a concealed handgun license to any person who satisfies specific criteria, often a background check and a safety class.
Many believe the act was to discriminate against immigrants in New York, particularly Italians, as the first person arrested under the law was mobster Giuseppe Costabile . Whether this was part of the law's intent, it was passed on a wave of anti-immigrant rhetoric as a measure to disarm an alleged criminal element. The police granted the licenses, and could easily discriminate against "undesirable" elements. Sponsor "Big Tim" Sullivan reputedly desired the law so that his criminal cohorts could go about their activities unimpeded by citizens defending themselves with concealed handguns.
registering guns and IDing owners can and will lead to discrimination.
getting a conceal carry permit is quite reasonable.
being arrested for carrying a concealed weapon in public WITHOUT a permit is quite reasonable.
i don't carry mine around unless i am specifically going to a place to shoot or going hunting. but i never conceal them.
You use the term "ban" rather loosely Glass. Here let me help you:
–verb (used with object) 1. to prohibit, forbid, or bar; interdict: to ban nuclear weapons; The dictator banned all newspapers and books that criticized his regime.
–noun 3. the act of prohibiting by law; interdiction.
The Sullivan act is a gun Control act and not a prohibition act. It didn't stop ownership of guns it only discriminated on whom can own them. It is an antiquated law that is not enforced the same way it was almost 100 years ago. Tim Sullivan enacted the law not for idealistic reasons but for corrupt selfish reasons.
Show me how it is PROHIBITING outright gun ownership Glass? Or that it is even enforced the same way it was in the early 20th Century. Show me how any NY political leader ala Pataki, Paterson, Bloomberg, Spitzer just to name a few recent ones, have used the May issue against any LAWFUL citizen? Keyword: Lawful.
I don't agree with the May issue part of the law but like I said such a thing is not done nowadays so that is a non issue imo.
So when it comes to NY, it is a gun CONTROL state not a gun PROHIBITION state. I don't know if you ever visited upstate NY beyond Westchester county but if you have it is as much hicks/rednecks up there as Mississippi and they all own guns pretty much as far as i know. So your argument for the Sullivan Act is kind of mute and unfounded. Your blowing smoke.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
posted
when NYC started to ban gun ownership? is what i said, not upstate, and this was the beginning
The Sullivan act is a gun Control act a
they banned ownership eventually, yes or no?
the Sulivan was the beginning.
and that's the point.
i could pull you dozens upon dozens of quotes where liberals say that they will do it one step at a time.
So your argument for the Sullivan Act is kind of mute and unfounded. Your blowing smoke.
i am telling it like it is, you just can't take the truth
you have about half your facts referenced wrong, and as a minority who has been abused? i am surprised you don't understand that minorities will be picked out for special treatment.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: The Sullivan act is a gun Control act a
they banned ownership of all eventually yes or no?
Wow your a quickie replier... what do you do all day? Watch the board in anticipation of me posting to reply to me? lol jk
ALL? no... some based on who the politicos and cops want to issue permits to or not? yes... It didn't ban guns to all... just gave discretion to cops and such who can own one.. Like i said Sullivan did it for selfish criminal corrupt reasons not idealistic... and it certainly is not being enforced the same way now... look at the list of celebrities who own guns in NY... do you agree with Joan Rivers owning one? because i don't lol that is scary...
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
posted
you only read a small part of my posts then.
read it all before you respond cuz it makes you seem fooliosh.
they did move to ban guns. you can make childish points all you want that don't win arguments. NYC moved to ban guns and they would do more if they could, i don't need a lesson on what banning means, and last i checked? upstate isn't in NYC
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: when NYC started to ban gun ownership? is what i said, not upstate, and this was the beginning
The Sullivan act is a gun Control act a
they banned ownership eventually, yes or no?
the Sulivan was the beginning.
and that's the point.
i could pull you dozens upon dozens of quotes where liberals say that they will do it one step at a time.
So your argument for the Sullivan Act is kind of mute and unfounded. Your blowing smoke.
i am telling it like it is, you just can't take the truth
you have about half your facts referenced wrong, and as a minority who has been abused? i am surprised you don't understand that minorities will be picked out for special treatment.
What liberals say and liberals do is 2 different things... we have a 2 party system to keep the balance so your just being paranoid... The Sullivan act has been around for almost 100 years and guess what nothing has changed much in terms of there being a gun ban or such... You like to use the term: if history has shown anything. We'll history has shown that despite the Sullivan act nothing else has been done since. I can pull you dozens and dozens of GOPers saying they will make sure prayer is law in schools.... hasn't happened has it? why? Because we have a balance of Left and Right to prevent it...
If anyone can't take the truth it is you Glass when it is pointed to you by me or Bigfoot or others... Sullivan Act is not a ban/prohibition but you still call it that... that is just one example... We are not talking about banning guns but Gun Control.. yet you keep insisting we are talking about banning... BF pointed this out 2 or 3 times to you as did i...
As for concealed Guns or carrying guns in NYC.. i don't agree with it and 2 cases convinces me of this:
The Plax gun case in NYC and
the Bernie Goetz case... BTW the Sullivan Act is a New York STATE law and not a New York CITY law so it affects upstate as much as downstate... to exclude one over the other is disriminatory in your post...
And as for me being a minority.... go read the stats... in the near future hispanics won't be the minority anymore.... so that doesn't bother me... NYC is more tolerant in general then other parts of the country and they do not favor one over the other when it comes to gun ownership and such in terms of race....hispanics, blacks, whites, asians alike own guns legally without NYC saying otherwise to them if they have a license..
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
quote:Originally posted by glassman: you only read a small part of my posts then.
read it all before you respond cuz it makes you seem fooliosh.
they did move to ban guns. you can make childish points all you want that don't win arguments. NYC moved to ban guns and they would do more if they could, i don't need a lesson on what banning means, and last i checked? upstate isn't in NYC
I am not making any childish point.... i am making a point straight from where you got the source:
read my highlighted parts:
Upon first passage, the Sullivan Act required licenses for New Yorkers to possess firearms small enough to be concealed. Possession of such firearms without a license was a misdemeanor, carrying them was a felony.
Yes you do need a lesson on what banning is because you are using the term wrongly in this debate. CONTROL and BAN are not the same.
Upstate is not NYC but the Sullivan Act is a NEW YORK STATE act and not a NYC act. Last I checked both Upstate and NYC are both part of New York State. No one since the act came into being and no one now has tried to BAN guns. CONTROL them yes, BAN them to LAWFUL LICENSED gun owners, NO.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
quote:Originally posted by glassman: you only read a small part of my posts then.
read it all before you respond cuz it makes you seem fooliosh.
I read all your post entirely... if anyone reads just a small part of posts of mine, BF, Pagan and other gun control advocates it is you.... you never seem to respond to BF's posts much... please do so... would like to see you contradict him...
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
posted
The Sullivan act has been around for almost 100 years and guess what nothing has changed much in terms of there being a gun ban or such
that's a lie. the sullivan act was the beginning of gun banning just like i said.
certain people were banned from owning certain guns and the decisions on who would get a permit were capricious..
there are many more gun banning laws on the books since then,
read the rest of my posts, i outlined the new laws. in specific, they forced people to register their guns and told them the list would not be used to take them away and then they did just that.
the cops might deny YOU a gun permit cuz you are not white, and you know it.
NYC's sullivan law will be struck down due to the Supreme court ruling on DC's gun laws.
the verbiage will be changed to must instead of may..
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
In New York City, a registration system enacted in 1967 for long guns, was used in the early 1990s to confiscate lawfully owned semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. (Same source as previous paragraph) The New York City Council banned firearms that had been classified by the city as "assault weapons." This was done despite the testimony of Police Commissioner Lee Brown that no registered "assault weapon" had been used in a violent crime in the city. The 2,340 New Yorkers who had registered their firearms were notified that these firearms had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city.
beginning to ban guns and banning entirely are very specific terms.
furthermore? i responded to BF several times
the media and NYC seem to want (erroneously) call any semi-auto an assault rifle/gun but the military has a very specific term, as do most people who know guns.
assault rifles would be full auto by anybody who knows guns. they are not readily available and require special permits and transfer documentation, just as YOU asked for... so, in sense? you are asking for new laws that we already have. title and transfer papers go with real assualt weapons
sending our troops to assault a fortification with semi-autos would be irresponsible to say the least.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
it should be considered a privilege to own bigger, better, and badder guns.
Says WHO?...where is that written?
I said it "should" be. That is just my humble opinion.
I think when people have to work a little harder to get something in life they tend to have a little more respect for, and value it's possession more, than they do the things that come easy in their lives. They may even keep it locked up.
IP: Logged |
posted
so pardon me when i don't beleive you when you say you just want safer gun ownership.there's no such thing.
I gonna go out on a limb and say that everyone wants safer gun ownership. It is a huge conflict between the constitution, pro gun people, not so pro gun, anti gun people and criminals. All of which have rights.
I just want to stop the flow of guns into my Country. Safer gun ownership? We were safer with less guns.
IP: Logged |
Thanks for the info on assault weapons. I pick on them because I think the only reason most people fight so hard to keep them legal is that they "can be" converted back to full auto if needed.
IP: Logged |
posted
I sure like readding you guys posts when it comes to the subject of guns and the law. I like guns I have carried one most of my adult life. And I am a big believer in the right to keep and bare. But I am also a realist and I know in the bottom of my heart in the future it will change and guns will be restricted in this country most liley like in England today. And yes you can own a firearm in England, Anyway this is how I feel about it,
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise.
IP: Logged |
Thanks for the info on assault weapons. I pick on them because I think the only reason most people fight so hard to keep them legal is that they "can be" converted back to full auto if needed.
as a USN gunner's mate? i was trained on how each firearm in our arsenal worked. and how to maintains them
there a couple of very old models of semi-auto that can be converted.
you have to realise that full auto is very hard on the metals used to make the parts.
not only is it illegal to manufacture and sell the parts to convert guns to full auto without a license, you must replace more than just the "needed" parts if the guns will last more than two or three minutes becuase the semi-auto parts won't hold up. somebody can make the gun fire full auto, but by the time they have practiced with it? it won't be operable anymore. there was recent case of a guy that got jail time for firing a gun rigged to work full auto- the prosecution was ludicrous because the thing required several specific conditions to fire full auto, and was not only unpredictable, but impractical....
i posted earlier that a half million dollars worth of machine eqpt would be about right. that's not what i call "easy"..
it takes aloto f knowledge to run each peice of eqpt and the tolerances are very demanding if you want the machine (gun) to work continuously and correcly. which anybody putting their life on th eline absolutely wants full auto requires alotof moving parts to reverse direction in the 100 times per second range...
that kind of manufacturing is organised crime at the level of major drug production.
a criminal organisation at that level could make them in the Jungles of Central America with impunity and sell them anywhere they wanted...
they will eventually do just that too...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
You have your point if criminals can get guns easy it is foolish that honest citizens have a hard time getting a gun. You have to remember that you have yours for protection and feel good about it. Every day I see the bad side of guns or what they have done to society and that is really not healthy for a person.
And I do feel like you currently in the USA and in our society I would not want to be without one
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: Like I have been saying all along...the BAD GUYS will get guns regardless of how many laws we create to stop them...
I personally think it's foolish to be without one...
I guess me I am a fool and most people in my neighborhood...
I'm 37 yrs old soon and have not needed one for anything... I do not have fantasies that one day the Gov't will turn on it's people... When the Constitution was written it was different times... times have evolved in the Western world that such things do not happen since WW2 era. As for crime, suburbia where I live crime is very low. We usually just have petty crimes that does not require shooting a gun at a person. Bored teenagers vandalising, burglaries (they do not do it when your home), etc.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
quote:Originally posted by raybond: And I do feel like you currently in the USA and in our society I would not want to be without one
The ironic thing is that the proliferation of guns has directly or indirectly caused the need to have them because of increased violence... more guns more violence...
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
posted
I do not have fantasies that one day the Gov't will turn on it's people
LOL... if they banned guns? they would be turning on the people since they do not have the votes to pass an ammendmnet tot eh constitution.
this is a good example of argumentum ad hominem since you are basically saying anybody who beleives the govt might not represent them anymore is paraniod...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Senate OKs credit card curbs 90-5 vote sends to House a bill that curtails fees and rate hikes. Unrelated provision boosts gun rights. Measure could go to Obama this week. By Jennifer Liberto, CNNMoney.com senior writer Last Updated: May 19, 2009: 2:03 PM ET WASHINGTON (CNNMoney.com) -- The Senate on Tuesday voted 90-5 to approve a bill that will make it tougher for credit card issuers to raise fees and interest rates starting early next year.
The bill includes an unrelated measure that would allow people to carry concealed weapons into national parks.
The bill now goes to the House, which is expected to take it up on Wednesday and pass it before the weekend. The bill would get to President Obama's desk before Memorial Day, as he called for.
"To have the industry reaching and be as abusive to consumers, it needed to stop and it needed to change," said Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., a bill sponsor.
The legislation is moderately tougher on card issuers than are new Federal Reserve rules that take effect in July 2010.
The Senate's bill would take effect in nine months and make it harder for people under age 21 to get credit cards. It would also ban rate hikes unless a consumer is more than 60 days late - and then restore the previous rate after six months if minimum payments are made.
The banking industry decried the bill, saying it would exacerbate the credit crisis and force banks to drop some risky credit card holders.
"We are concerned that the Senate bill will have a dramatic impact on the ability of consumers, students, and small businesses to obtain and use credit cards," said American Bankers Association president Edward Yingling
The credit card legislation has been a long work in progress. The House passed a bill in 2008 and again earlier this year. The legislation, which stalled in past years, was propelled by public outrage and pressure by President Obama.
"I'm very glad to have these reforms within reach at long last," said the bill's House sponsor, Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y. "To Sen. Dodd's credit, he has enhanced my bill in a few areas - especially in extending from 30 to 60 days before penalty rate hikes can kick in on existing balances."
Maloney added she thought it "unfortunate," that the measure to allow concealed weapons in national parks remained on the credit card bill, especially since Memorial Day kicks off the summer season at national parks. She planned to vote against the gun provision but said it shouldn't block the bill's final passage.
In recent few months, credit card companies have been raising fees and interest rates. From November 2008 to February 2009, rates increased from an average to 13.08% from 12.02%, according to a Federal Reserve Board report.
At the same time, more people are not able to make their credit cards payments and are walking away from the debt, according to a Federal Reserve report.
However, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said Monday he was not concerned about a consumer debt "bubble."
"Americans are going to be reducing how much they borrow, improving their balance sheets, saving more," he said. "Banks are still going to have losses they're going to have to adjust to. And that's what's going to make the process of repair here longer. . .But that's a necessary, healthy process of adjustment for us to go through."
First Published: May 19, 2009: 1:21 PM ET
-------------------- It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious.
IP: Logged |
posted
Yes Mach you do have a point looking at this from the side of business supply certainly affects demand and demand can certainly affect supply. For instance even though you don't see much press or even any press on the fact that huge supplies of guns are now heading south to mexico there is a giant need since the mexican government is at war with drug cartels
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by raybond: Yes Mach you do have a point looking at this from the side of business supply certainly affects demand and demand can certainly affect supply. For instance even though you don't see much press or even any press on the fact that huge supplies of guns are now heading south to mexico there is a giant need since the mexican government is at war with drug cartels
are they at war with cartels in general or just certain cartels.
historically speaking, the cartels in Mexico have been in bed with the govt, and the new president seems to have shakn up the status quo, but that could just be his cartel(s) is working on getting rid of other cartel(s)
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
State of interest rates In Marquette vs. First Omaha Service Corp., the Supreme Court ruled that a national bank could charge the highest interest rate allowed in their home state to customers living anywhere in the United States, including states with restrictive interest caps.
"It's whatever is agreed to in the contract," says Michael Donovan, a consumer attorney and partner at Donovan Searles in Philadelphia.
"They can export rates to other states and override state law limits."
one of my cards recently raised their rates and said if oi don't agree? to send them the card. i don't care cuz i don't carry a balance, but if i did? id' be shopping for another
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: [QUOTE]That is a pretty weak comparison...
My argument is this...the LAWS ALREADY EXIST to stop criminals from getting them legally
And my argument is that SOMEONE is getting them legally. It is not Russian surplus that is ending up in the streets. Someone IS getting them legally and illegally transferring them.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jgrecoconstr: You guys are stillllll debating this!!! Neither of you is going to change the others mind even if you talk about this till the polar ice caps melt. Criminals will always find a gun it doesn't matter how tough the laws are period. That's why their called criminals cause they find a way around the law. If you make the laws even stricter then they will just break into someones home when their not there and steal those guns. Or they'll cross the border which they already do and bring a gun in that way, or they'll buy it from some crack head who stole from his father's collection to sell for a fix. Making laws stricter won't solve anything. They are already strict in NY yet people still shoot each other.
No jg...we are not going to change each others minds. But because it is such a charged issue is exactly why it should be argued. Who knows...perhaps we can even find a small piece of middle ground that would serve both sides.
Regardless, I know every time I go a round or two with Glass it pushes me to learn more, reexamine and refine my personal position, and hopefully he feels the same way. If for no other reason than that, I find it worthwhile.
Hope you found a good flight to Yellowstone. Enjoy your vacation!
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: getting what exaclty?
This is the guns thread right?
The argument is that making stricter rules on gun purchases will only make it harder for law abiding citizens to purchase weapons yes? That criminals will be able to get their hands on em no matter how tough the rules get? So...Where are these criminals getting all these illegal guns if not from legal buyers? Please don't tell me you think they all fell off the back of a truck.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues.
IP: Logged |
why does it seem logical to bundle laws? is killing someone with a gun worse than killing someone with a car or an OD of drugs? the person is still just as dead...
Depends on if it is negligent homicide or premeditated homicide or suicide. All very different causes of death.
should Busweiser be responsible for every alcohol related death?
I know some would say yes but I am not suggesting that Smith and Wesson be held responsible for a homicide using one of their weapons (unless they bypassed legal checks and sold the weapon under the table.)
no-ones rights were infringed it's just that the problem is, it always comes back to when they ban guns only criminals will have them,a dn they will..
Why do they have them Glass? Where are all these miraculous weapons coming from? Yes I know with the right equipment you can create a Saturday night special by yourself and if you are patient even make something sturdier. That isn't what is being used in these crimes. Where are they coming from?
why make honest people have to do more and give up more rights because of criminals.
This is a non-argument. All rules make honest people give something up. This is what differentiates and gives them recourse against those who would infringe upon them. This issue is no different than any other. Why do honest people pay taxes for jails? Why do honest people have to have car insurance? Why do honest people...(insert your rule here)?
all of the registration in the world won't stop people from being killed.
No, but it could lessen the numbers. How much is one life worth?
suicides are quoted as criminal activity when gun stats are presented.
you may have deleted them, but the gun banners don't. I am not arguing their case. I recognize the point but it is not pertinent to this conversation. 34 homicides per day is what I am using and what I care about. Suicides need to find someone else to be their advocate. That isn't me.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues.
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
full auto requires alotof moving parts to reverse direction in the 100 times per second range...
