Gun rights group applauds after federal appeals court deals blow to NY concealed carry law
Gun rights group applauds after federal appeals court deals blow to NY concealed carry law
A federal appeals court on Friday struck down parts of New York's controversial concealed carry law but upheld most of the ban on carrying guns in "sensitive places."
You're viewing a single thread.
It's staggering they keep pushing against the only natural rights that's been codified with "shall not be infringed".
Seems pretty clear that all laws limiting anything that is considered a weapon would be unconstitutional.
And before all the BS arguments flow in:
Automatic weapons existed when the constitution was written.
Cannon are still legally owned.
At the time the Constitution writing, entire ships with rows of cannon were in private possession.
Do you really think the framers were stupid and couldn't forsee the development of greater and greater weapons? Why else would they write it this way, considering they'd just been attacked by their own King.
If you disagree with any Thin I've said, I can only think you haven't read enough of the history of the time, to understand they didn't see themselves as rebels (that's a label we've applied), but as loyal subjects of the crown and were being treated like second-class citizens.
It’s staggering they keep pushing against the only natural rights that’s been codified with “shall not be infringed”.
What is the number one cause of death for U.S. children right now? It's gun deaths.
The U.S. has a gun problem. That's why there is pushback. We need gun control because the current situation is not working, and is leading to unnecessary deaths.
It’s working fine for me and everyone I know. Maybe you should look at the stats and see where the real problem is.
"Children are dying"
"Works fine for me"
Really?
That is life. I get you want to parade dead children, thinking that will swap people, but it doesn't.
Most of the deaths are black children and we know that can solved with more law enforcement and heavier penalties. Yet, I don't see you advocating for that.
That is life
No, it's negligence and malice.
Most of the deaths are black children and we know that can solved with more law enforcement
Not even a hint of irony.
There is no irony there. Police in black communities saves lives. That is why the black community is asking for more police.
I would recommend that you distance yourself from right wing media. It will rot your brain out.
I am not sure why you are trying to engage in personal attacks again. Can you dispute anything I said? Or are you just going to ramble like an addled mind?
I am not sure why you are trying to engage in personal attacks again.
I'm not saying you have a rotted brain, im not attacking you. But nothing but right wing media consumption will do it. I've been there.
Can you dispute anything I said?
I don't know how else to tell you that you have thoroughly misunderstood the situation beyond repair. You need to take a step back from your sources of bias and return to reality.
Didn't you get corrected multiple times at this point? I feel like you've had repeated conversations, and you somehow always forget them the next day. It's not just guns either, it's a lot of things.
Didn’t you get corrected multiple times at this poin
"Corrected"
You guys don't seem to understand that gun deaths are still deaths whether suicide or homicide. It's bad either way.
I feel like you’ve had repeated conversations, and you somehow always forget them the next day
If you think the gun debate is too repetitive, feel free to instead post something interesting.
And you don't seem to understand that there's no valid reason based in facts to care specifically about "gun deaths", no matter how many times you're corrected. Don't let facts get in the way of your feelings pal
no valid reason based in facts to care
The same goes for any kind of deaths when you put it like that. Unlike you, I care when people die.
If you cared, you wouldn’t vote democrat. Defunding police, soft on crime is not a path to fewer deaths.
Tell me, what is the homicide rate in the U.S. versus your average European country? How many guns does your average European country have in comparison to the U.S.?
Can you answer me that?
I am not Google. It is your job to form your argument.
You know damn well the answers to those questions.
Europe has lower death rates, lower gun ownership rates, and generally less militarized/better trained police. And it isn't a coincidence.
Ironically not all weapons are protected by the 2nd. Hunting weapons are not protected. Weapons for war are protected. Why do I get tired of the, who would hunt with an AR-15 argument? The 2nd amendment is not about hunting.
We don't agree on a lot but I'm forced to agree with you on this. The only weapons protected by the 2nd Amendment are the ones you would issue to the men and women you would muster in civil defense - AR-15's and the like.
The 2nd Amendment is an insurmountable obstacle to impactful, meaningful gun reform in the United States, regardless of your position on whether that reform should be carried out.
The only weapons protected by the 2nd Amendment are the ones you would issue to the men and women you would muster in civil defense - AR-15's and the like.
I'm glad we can agree that the second amendment covers fully automatic, burst fire, and high caliber weapons and ammo.
I am fine not having fully automatic or burst. As long as it is otherwise a capable weapon that i can use military ammo and magazine with.
5.56 isn't what I would call high caliber. It was picked because it had decent stopping power and you could carry a lot of ammo for it. The kick is minimal to it when you are shooting it.
We got to shoot our M-16 of full auto for fun but it isn't something we would have done in the field. That is why you have the M-240 or the SAW. THat is why I don't mind my personal weapons not having them.
I'm being facetious with the guy saying that weapons that would be valuable in civil defense should be fair game. Because should it actually come down to a matter of civil defense, you can bet your ass that truck mounted .50 calibers and larger anti-anor and anti-vehicle weapons are on the table.
Those would be supplied by the state in an emergency. The 2nd amendment was about rifles. The intent was in time of war, each person would show up with their rifle to form an army. The state would supply cannons, etc.
In the modern day, we would show up with rifles and the state would supply us the M2 and other equipment.
In some states, they actually had a law that you had to own a certain type of weapon for that reason. Standards are good. Imagine trying to supply every weird type of ammo everyone could need. That is why I have an AR-15. It is the same type of ammo as the Army. When the Army switches to the SPEAR, I will switch as well.
The 2nd amendment was about rifles
Then why was "arms", a fundamentally broad term that obviously encompasses far more than just rifles, used, specifically alongside "shall not be infringed"? If the goal were just for every man to be able to own a single rifle, would they have not written it as such?
At the time arms meant the weapon you carried. You don't carry a cannon. You don't carry a tank. You don't carry a M2. Those are all heavy weapons and not 'arms' as used historically. When states required people to muster, they didn't demand they bring artillery. They expected them to bring arms—their rifles.
You can't carry an M2. It's a stationary weapon.
I am pro-Second Amendment, but the intent was never for civilians to own artillery and crew-served weapons. It was meant to allow the building of infantry units.