Why register with the Steelers Fever Forums?
 • Intelligent and friendly discussions.
 • It's free and it's quick. Always.
 • Enter events in the forums calendar.
 • Very user friendly software.
 • Exclusive contests and giveaways.

 Donate to Steelers Fever, Click here
 Our 2014 Goal: $450.00 - To Date: $450.00 (100.00%)
 Home | Forums | Editorials | Shop | Tickets | Downloads | Contact Pittsburgh Steelers Forum Feed Not Just Fans. Hardcore Fans.

Go Back   Steelers Fever Forums > Miscellaneous > Locker Room


Steelers Fever Fan Shop

Doc's Sports Get FREE NFL Picks and College Football picks as well as Football Lines like live NFL Lines and updated NFL Power Rankings all at Doc's Sports Service.

Steelers Fever Presents...

Steelers Panthers

GAMEDAY
Sunday, September 21, 8:30 PM
NBC
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-16-2013, 11:45 AM   #31
Atlanta Dan
Resigned
Supporter
 
Atlanta Dan's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 14,810
Member Number: 728
Thanks: 2,265
Thanked 7,267 Times in 3,262 Posts
Default Re: NY passes new state gun laws

Quote:
Originally Posted by MACH1 View Post
In other words two wrongs make a right?
No - in other words just admit actions with which you disagree are in your opinion wrong rather the start of a descent into the long dark night of dictactorship because you disagree with them

You apparently think a lot of what Obama does is "wrong" - I think a lot of what he does is "right" - we both have our own opinions
Atlanta Dan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 12:00 PM   #32
MACH1
Quest For Seven
Supporter
 
MACH1's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Potataho
Posts: 14,153
Member Number: 3236
Thanks: 1,663
Thanked 4,953 Times in 1,846 Posts
Default Re: NY passes new state gun laws

What I think is wrong is trying to circumvent congress and/or the constitution, Obama seems to be doing that more than any recent d'bags in office when he can't get his way, or forcing things down our throats. And it doesn't matter who it is.
__________________


ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
MACH1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 12:14 PM   #33
Atlanta Dan
Resigned
Supporter
 
Atlanta Dan's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 14,810
Member Number: 728
Thanks: 2,265
Thanked 7,267 Times in 3,262 Posts
Default Re: NY passes new state gun laws

Quote:
Originally Posted by MACH1 View Post
What I think is wrong is trying to circumvent congress and/or the constitution, Obama seems to be doing that more than any recent d'bags in office when he can't get his way, or forcing things down our throats. And it doesn't matter who it is.
Executive orders are entered all the time (although Obama has not entered as many as his predecessors) without being regarded as "circumventing" Congress" - that is why i cited to a Republican President using an executive order to implement a gun control measure as proof this is nothing new and was not a problem to the GOP then (since Obama was not doing it?)

As far as the "unconstitutional" part of the action, would it be any less unconstitutional if Congress enacted the provisions of the Executive Orders as statutes - if the answer is no, why would the limits upon weapons use be "unconstitutional" (Justice Scalia noted in Heller that the right to bear "arms" does not mean the right to use any and all weapons)

Policy disagreements are why it matters to win elections - better luck next time in winning the one for President
Atlanta Dan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 12:33 PM   #34
SteelCityMom
MST3K Junkie
 
SteelCityMom's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: In the land of The Crazies
Posts: 7,687
Gender: Female
Member Number: 16666
Thanks: 2,756
Thanked 2,399 Times in 1,123 Posts
Default Re: NY passes new state gun laws

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanta Dan View Post
My point was that in all probability what Bush The Elder was not unconstitutional
(what is your basis for contending it was?) and the constant bleating about Obama engaging in unprecedented exercises of executive authority is unsound

Unless of course the rationale is that everything Obama does with which someone disagrees is not just wrong but unconstitutional and therefore if prior Presidents took similar actions those actions also were unconstitutional even though no one has raised such a contention until now
I didn't specifically say that one was, but we'll go with that one. The "right to bear arms" is an individual right and that this right extends to possessing military style semiautomatics. Current "assault rifle" legislation unduly burdens this right and is, therefore, unconstitutional. A number of courts (and you provided me recently with examples) have agreed with this assessment. Therefore, the limiting of firearms to civilians is unconstitutional. The 2nd amendment wasn't written for "sporting purposes".

I contend that civilians have bent very far in giving up parts of this right. Some may use that bending as a reason to continue further. Citizens may not legally possess the same weapons as that of the military, as was intended by the 2nd amendment, and many citizens are fine with that. Asking them to further give up their rights at this point, by only allowing (mostly) pistols and hunting rifles/shotguns is not going to stand.

I've never said that everything Obama does that I don't agree with is unconstitutional. To be honest, I was never aware of Bush Sr.'s EO that you brought up. Like I said, I was 9, and wasn't reading the politics section of the paper every day. I was doing Book-It challenges and playing with Barbie dolls.

I would also mention, that not everyone who demonized Bush in the past for the wars he went into (with the approval of Congress), is willing to demonize Obama in the same way, even though he entered Libya w/o Congressional approval. It goes both ways. Many who labeled Bush a war criminal are not willing to do the same for Obama.
__________________
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause and effect, but actually from a non-linear non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly timey wimey...stuff.


http://forums.steelersfever.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=16666&dateline=129531  3365
SteelCityMom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 12:35 PM   #35
SteelCityMom
MST3K Junkie
 
SteelCityMom's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: In the land of The Crazies
Posts: 7,687
Gender: Female
Member Number: 16666
Thanks: 2,756
Thanked 2,399 Times in 1,123 Posts
Default Re: NY passes new state gun laws

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanta Dan View Post
Executive orders are entered all the time (although Obama has not entered as many as his predecessors) without being regarded as "circumventing" Congress" - that is why i cited to a Republican President using an executive order to implement a gun control measure as proof this is nothing new and was not a problem to the GOP then (since Obama was not doing it?)

As far as the "unconstitutional" part of the action, would it be any less unconstitutional if Congress enacted the provisions of the Executive Orders as statutes - if the answer is no, why would the limits upon weapons use be "unconstitutional" (Justice Scalia noted in Heller that the right to bear "arms" does not mean the right to use any and all weapons)

Policy disagreements are why it matters to win elections - better luck next time in winning the one for President
They noted the use of "strange and unusual weapons" (or something along those lines). Semi-auto's do not fall into that category. And they have uses for both hunting and self-defense.
__________________
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause and effect, but actually from a non-linear non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly timey wimey...stuff.


http://forums.steelersfever.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=16666&dateline=129531  3365
SteelCityMom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 12:45 PM   #36
SteelCityMom
MST3K Junkie
 
SteelCityMom's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: In the land of The Crazies
Posts: 7,687
Gender: Female
Member Number: 16666
Thanks: 2,756
Thanked 2,399 Times in 1,123 Posts
Default Re: NY passes new state gun laws

The president, if he decides to go through with all this, will face a lengthy court battle...that will probably go on past his term. All at the taxpayers expense. Instead, he could just beef up measures that are already in place, and set stricter regulations and penalties on gun sellers. It would be absolutely silly to do otherwise.

Banning "assault weapons" in the 90's didn't work (ever wonder why crime was at it's highest then?). Gun sales are at an all time high right now, while murder rates are at their lowest. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...tables/table-1

Also according to the UCR, firearm murders have declined every year since 2006 from 10,177 murders to 8,583 in 2011 despite the population increasing in the United States. Nonfatal firearm crimes are dramatically decreasing as well. The Bureau of Justice Statistic shows that the crime rate for nonfatal violent crimes involving firearms dropped from 5.9 per 100,000 in 1993 to 1.4 in 2009 (over a 66% decrease). All of this is occurring despite the fact that there are more guns in America than ever before.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/22...n-all-time-low
__________________
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause and effect, but actually from a non-linear non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly timey wimey...stuff.


http://forums.steelersfever.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=16666&dateline=129531  3365
SteelCityMom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 01:47 PM   #37
Vis
In Hoc
Supporter
 
Vis's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SC
Posts: 7,834
Gender: Male
Member Number: 5117
Thanks: 676
Thanked 5,202 Times in 2,561 Posts
My Mood: Mellow
Default Re: NY passes new state gun laws

I just put 20 rounds in that deer
__________________


All generalizations are dangerous.
Vis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 01:58 PM   #38
Fire Haley
Banned
 

Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,359
Member Number: 763
Thanks: 53
Thanked 1,098 Times in 768 Posts
Default Re: NY passes new state gun laws

The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution has nothing to do with hunting - duh



NY is just the beginning, just like I predicted......the elitist rulers will decide what's best for you




Michigan Mayors Pushing for Changes in Gun Laws

http://www.fox47news.com/news/topstories/186946671.html

---------------

Cities and towns to seek sweeping gun reforms

HARTFORD -- Connecticut will have the toughest gun laws in the country if the Legislature adopts a proposal to be unveiled Wednesday by an organization representing the overwhelming majority of the state's towns and cities

http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/...ms-4197284.php

-------------------------

Santa Cruz County Supervisors Pass 45 Day Moratorium to Freeze Any Gun Shop Plans

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, Calif- The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors, in a unanimous decision, approved a 45 day moratorium which places an immediate hold on any pending gun retailers looking to open up shop in unincorporated areas of Santa Cruz County.

http://www.kionrightnow.com/story/20...gun-shop-plans

---------------

Largest Pa. gun show says no to assault rifles

Pennsylvania gun owners threatened to boycott the state's largest hunting and fishing expo Tuesday after organizers announced that they would ban the display and sale of assault rifles at this year's show. Reed Exhibitions, a British-based company that runs the Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show in Harrisburg each February, notified vendors of the change in policy over the last several days, a company representative confirmed to The Inquirer.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/br...t_weapons.html

-----------

City of Austin furthers effort to control guns

AUSTIN TX -- The City of Austin's Health and Human Services Committee spent the first hour of its Tuesday meeting discussing ways to expand gun control and safety. "We are taking part in an important discussion that's going on at the national level," said Austin City Council member Mike Martinez.

http://www.kvue.com/home/City-of-Aus...187029851.html

-------

Kiss PA goodbye too


Sen. Bob Casey: Gun control measures would not infringe on certain gun rights

Just hours before President Obama unveils proposals for executive measures that would impose stricter policies on gun control, U.S. Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., said proposals to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazine clips would not infringe on gun owners' rights.

He also said that an assault weapons ban would not have an “adverse impact” on important considerations for Pennsylvanians

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/ind...bob_casey.html
Fire Haley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 02:03 PM   #39
Atlanta Dan
Resigned
Supporter
 
Atlanta Dan's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 14,810
Member Number: 728
Thanks: 2,265
Thanked 7,267 Times in 3,262 Posts
Default Re: NY passes new state gun laws

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCMom View Post
I didn't specifically say that one was, but we'll go with that one. The "right to bear arms" is an individual right and that this right extends to possessing military style semiautomatics. Current "assault rifle" legislation unduly burdens this right and is, therefore, unconstitutional. A number of courts (and you provided me recently with examples) have agreed with this assessment. Therefore, the limiting of firearms to civilians is unconstitutional. The 2nd amendment wasn't written for "sporting purposes".

I contend that civilians have bent very far in giving up parts of this right. Some may use that bending as a reason to continue further. Citizens may not legally possess the same weapons as that of the military, as was intended by the 2nd amendment, and many citizens are fine with that. Asking them to further give up their rights at this point, by only allowing (mostly) pistols and hunting rifles/shotguns is not going to stand. .
You may be reading a lot more into Heller than is there

Heller held that an absolute ban upon handguns by the District of Columbia violated the Second Amendment right to self-defense - if there is anything in there about the right to bear semi-automatic weapons I missed it

What Justice Scalia did say about other weapons was as follows

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely
explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. ...


It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful against modern day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.


http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content.../06/07-290.pdf

Scalia at the very least leaves open the possibility that a M-16 can be banned - if you can ban the M-16 without violating the Second Amendment it certainly is not a stretch to argue the AR-15 and other semi-automatics that would be "most useful" in military service also can be banned without violating the Second Amendment. Just because a weapon might be used for sporting purposes (machine guns would certainly be an effective means of culling the deer population) is not the end of the argument.

In accordance with that line of reasoning, the DC Circuit upheld a ban on assault weapons and certain types of ammunition, after Heller, as not being in violation of the Second Amendment in a challenge to that law by the same plaintiff who previously had challenged the handgun ban successfully in the Supreme Court's Heller decision. The law that was upheld:

defines “assault weapon” to include certain brands and models of semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns, such as the Colt AR-15 series of rifles, as well as semi-automatic firearms with certain features, regardless of make and model, such as a semi-automatic rifle with a “pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon” or a “thumbhole stock.” 7-2501.01(3A)(A). The District also prohibits possession of “any large capacity ammunition feeding device,” which includes “a magazine ... or similar device that has a capacity of ... more than 10 rounds of ammunition.”

In upholding the DC ban on those weapons, as opposed to handguns, the DC Circuit held

The plaintiffs contend semi-automatic rifles, in particular the AR variants, are commonly possessed for self-protection in the home as well as for sport. They also argue magazines holding more than ten rounds are commonly possessed for self-defense and for other lawful purposes and that the prohibition of such magazines would impose a burden upon them. Specifically, they point out that without a large-capacity magazine it would be necessary, in a stressful situation, to pause in order to reload the firearm....

Although we cannot be confident the prohibitions impinge at all upon the core right protected by the Second Amendment, we are reasonably certain the prohibitions do not impose a substantial burden upon that right. As the District points out, the plaintiffs present hardly any evidence that semi-automatic rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds are well-suited to or preferred for the purpose of self-defense or sport. Cf. Kleck & Gertz, supra, at 177 (finding that of 340,000 to 400,000 instances of defensive gun use in which the defenders believed the use of a gun had saved a life, 240,000 to 300,000 involved handguns).
...

Heller suggests “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned because they are “dangerous and unusual,” see 554 U.S. at 627. The Court had previously described the “AR-15” as “the civilian version of the military’s M-16 rifle.” Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600, 603 (1994). Although semi-automatic firearms, unlike automatic M-16s, fire “only one shot with each pull of the trigger,” id. at 602 n.1, semi-automatics still fire almost as rapidly as automatics....

We conclude the District has carried its burden of showing a substantial relationship between the prohibition of both semi-automatic rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds and the objectives of protecting police officers and controlling crime. Accordingly, the bans do not violate the plaintiffs’ constitutional right to keep and bear arms.


Heller v. District Of Columbia (aka "Heller II")(D.C. Cir. October 4, 2011)

http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/DECA496973477C748525791F004D84F9/$file/10-7036-1333156.pdf

That holding by the DC Circuit has not been reversed by the Supremes

Quote:
Many who labeled Bush a war criminal are not willing to do the same for Obama.
W was tagged as being a war criminal for overseeing "enhanced interrogation practices" that constituted torture, not for invading Iraq. FWIW I thought the Libya adventure was an improper exercise of executive authority, which is not the same as an international war crime


Last edited by Atlanta Dan; 01-16-2013 at 02:20 PM.
Atlanta Dan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 02:03 PM   #40
SteelCityMom
MST3K Junkie
 
SteelCityMom's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: In the land of The Crazies
Posts: 7,687
Gender: Female
Member Number: 16666
Thanks: 2,756
Thanked 2,399 Times in 1,123 Posts
Default Re: NY passes new state gun laws

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vis View Post
I just put 20 rounds in that deer
I'm not a hunter, and have only encountered wild hogs a couple times in my life (thankfully from a distance), but I have seen footage of people trying to take them down (I believe it was Mach who alluded to this before as well, I can't remember)...but I'm pretty sure I never saw anyone take down a wild hog with one shot.

Hunters who want lighter recoil and faster sight-picture acquisition during follow-up shots might lean toward a semi-automatic. Those who want the best in long-range precision, hunt dangerous game or hunt under incredibly harsh environmental conditions, might want to pick a bolt-action rifle.

It's not as simple as "how many rounds can you put in a deer". That's why you should know the differences of guns, and how they can be used, before you debate about them.
__________________
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause and effect, but actually from a non-linear non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly timey wimey...stuff.


http://forums.steelersfever.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=16666&dateline=129531  3365
SteelCityMom is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.1 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.0.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Navbar with Avatar by Motorradforum
no new posts