dave_pro2a
Member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2006
- Messages
- 447
Those NYC cops can't have anybody capable of shooting back, when they want to fire 50 rounds into a car full of unarmed citizens.
Totally understandable.
Totally understandable.
At one point you're saying it's a good thing (level the playing field), at another you're saying it's bad (as unfortunate as it may be) -- and far too many other juxtapositions to mention.
Spreadfire - in all of your replies, you missed the one critical aspect to all of this: it's nobody else's business if you choose to break the law or not. That's between you, your <insert diety of choice>, and your Government.i consider myself to be a law abiding citizen. i have enough ATF permits and such that i have to be or else i can get them all revoked. i have no problem with the government checking on me.
i do thing it is a good thing that they are taking steps to get guns out of the hands of crooks
THAT is what I object to; not the notion that people should be expected to play by the rules, but rather the notion that our Government is trying to convince ordinary folk that it's their civic duty to pry into the private lives of others.
An unconstitutional law is not law.
Would these be the "crooks" who have paid their debt, been released, and are "supposed" to be free, or the "crooks" who haven't been convicted of anything? Those are the only kind of crooks that aren't locked up, and we don't really have to worry about the locked up ones
i think some guy who is busy spouting off the 2nd Amendment as his legal right to produce an unregistered machine gun or something like that deserves to have his machine gun confiscated and have his day in court to see if other people agree with him.
if i lived in NYC and couldn't be armed then i sure as hell would want the cops to make sure nobody else was armed so it is a more even playing field.
i do thing it is a good thing that they are taking steps to get guns out of the hands of crooks, and that it is unfortunate that NYC has very strict gun laws for the common citizen. i don't think im contradicting myself when i say both of these.
i think some guy who is busy spouting off the 2nd Amendment as his legal right to produce an unregistered machine gun or something like that deserves to have his machine gun confiscated and have his day in court to see if other people agree with him.
why aren't you leading a legal proceeding to repeal NYC's "illegal" gun laws?
"Something like that" could well include, say, packing a .45 in the nightstand. And what do you want to bet these "other people" know next to nothing about firearms?
It does NOT matter what the "laws" are in NYC. This country's highest law is the US Constitution, and any "law" anywhere in the US that conflicts with the Constitution is not a "law" at all. It's nothing more than an unofficial rule enforced by thugs, much like a street gang enforcing a "law" that no other gang is allowed to walk on their turf.
If I lived in NYC and my tax dolalrs were being used to fund this, you better believe I'd be a bit hot.like i said, there is nobody forcing citizens to report others. there certainly is an incentive ($1000) but no requirement.
Plus they prohibit instructing a jury of their rights.
crooks are ones who violate criminal laws. if someone has "paid their debt" and they are a convicted felon, the law says they cannot possess a firearm. i personally agree with the law that convicted felons cannot own or possess firearms.
So why is NYPD taking their guns? The government would never disarm innocent people would they?:banghead:"crooks" who haven't been "convicted of anything," not sure what you mean by that. a person who is awaiting trail hasn't been convicted. a person who has had the charges dropped isn't a "crook."
Spreadfire, you just don't get it. Might not be today or tommorrow but they WILL come for your guns too, and nobodys even gonna have a sling-shot or a sharp stick left to help you defend your GOD GIVIN RIGHT to keep and bear arms. When it happens just remember how you said it was ok to take everybody elses.
The next day, the foreman sent the judge a note stating that " 'we can no longer deliberate,' " that " 'Eve Radcliff does not appear to be able to understand the rules as given by you,' " that " 'nearly all my fellow jurors questio[n] her ability to understand the rules and her ability to reason,' " and that continuing will result in a " 'hung jury . . . based on . . . one person's inability to reason or desire to be unreasonable.' " Ibid. The judge called the jury into the courtroom, and, in the presence of the attorneys and the defendant, read the note aloud. The judge asked the foreman whether the jury was deliberating. The foreman replied that the jurors were " 'just having the same conversation over the same issue time and time again.' " Id., at 574. The judge made the following statement to the jury:
" 'The juror has a right to do that, as you all know. They have a right to disagree with everybody else. But they do not have a right to not deliberate. They must deliberate and follow the rules and laws as I state it to them.' " Ibid.
There's a difference between my calling the police because my next door neighbor is dealing dope from his front yard and having the Gubb'ment offer to pay a grand of my tax dollars to anyone willing to peep in his windows to see what he's doing in there.But it's not my neighbor's business if I choose to be law-abiding or not sounds good in highschool but in the real world if my neighbor does something illegal that impacts my like its very much my buisness. and dealing dope and stupid gun tricks in my vicinity impact my life.