Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Extras | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

NY No. 1 in gun control

January 16, 2013

ALBANY — Jumping out ahead of Washington, New York state enacted the nation’s toughest gun restrictions Tuesday and the first since the Connecticut school massacre, including an expanded......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(99)

stangv8

Jan-21-13 9:26 AM

The Klan also hung more Republicans and Jews than Blacks. They also went after Catholics which tend to be mostly White.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

American

Jan-19-13 8:44 PM

Harry S. Truman (Democrat) ( The Klan was politically powerful in Jackson County, and two of Truman's opponents in the Democratic primary had Klan support. Truman refused at first, but paid the Klan's $10 membership fee, and a meeting with a Klan officer was arranged),Senator Robert Byrd (D) was a Kleagle, a Klan recruiter, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court Hugo Black (Democrat)among other Democrats were all members of the klan. Does anyone seem a pattern with democrats here?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

stangv8

Jan-19-13 8:19 PM

buldog, on the KKK question, I was thinking you might be able to answer that since it's an organization that was only open to Democrats. Figuring you're a Democrat, you might be in a better position to answer your question.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

American

Jan-19-13 12:48 PM

KWC there is no sense trying to convince such closed minded people like judeye and a few others about this. Their indoctrination by the liberals is fully complete it would seem.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

kcw007

Jan-18-13 3:35 PM

kcwoo7 continued: "A militia" & "the militia", for purposes of 2A; are two differant, although somewhat related, things.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

kcw007

Jan-18-13 3:30 PM

judeye @ Jan18, 8:58am "stangv8...OK..so what defines a "militia" For crying out loud Judeye, can't you (and for that matter, everyone else having his question) just go and read the first few pages of District of Columbia v. Heller for yourself! What you'll find is that 2A clearly refers to the "militia unorganized", originally "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense". Of course today we'd have to include women too I guess;, even you I suppose:-). Heller also clearly states that gun ownership has NOTHING to do with membership in an organized militia such as the National Guard. The confusion is that there's "the militia", which is the people as a whole, and "a militia" which is comprized of persons duly called forth from "the militia" to serve in an organized unit under government control. "A militia" & "the militia" for purposes of 2A, are two differant, althoug

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

bulldog10

Jan-18-13 1:57 PM

Is the KKK a militia?

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DarkStar

Jan-18-13 11:46 AM

Sorry, I hit post before I finished (I'm real tired today TGIF!)

The reasoning this view is taken by so many is the way the amendment is phrased, the emphasis is on regulation the militia itself and not the people.

The Supreme Court has basically said the same thing in several cases and affirmed that "the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia."

If it wasn't so serious it would almost be amusing how so many people who have such WIDE views on the other amendments have such a narrow view on the 2nd.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DarkStar

Jan-18-13 11:32 AM

Judeye,

From a historical context this appears to mean that once an unorganized militia forms up they can't act like a bunch of bandits and must abide by rules and regulations set forth on the behavior and actions of military forces.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

Jan-18-13 8:58 AM

stangv8....ok..so that defines Militia...

what does WELL REGULATED mean?

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DarkStar

Jan-18-13 8:42 AM

bulldog10,

Hey, I never said everyone on the right is brilliant. Those republicans supporting Cuomo on this are complete idiots as they've allowed his B$ to fool them.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

localresident

Jan-17-13 11:06 PM

Stang, the actual number is between 5 - 8 $Billion surplus.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

stangv8

Jan-17-13 7:18 PM

bulldog, you've been in NY too long if you think 3/4 of the states will change the 2nd Amendment.

You see the Texas Attorney General is inviting New Yorkers who want to live free to move to Texas. Texas also has no personal income tax but still have over a billion dollar surplus.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

bulldog10

Jan-17-13 6:07 PM

Its not just the left, did you notice the amount of NYS republicans who approved of Cuomo's position?????

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DarkStar

Jan-17-13 4:59 PM

Yeah, it's only your rights, no big deal.

Yeah, it's the one that guarantees your ability to maintain the rest of your rights, but we should just be happy with the rights the left is willing to allow us.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

teacherteacher

Jan-17-13 4:06 PM

take it easy, they are only guns!

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DarkStar

Jan-17-13 2:57 PM

"because the 2nd amendment states something now doesn't mean it can't be changed"

Yeah, just like they could change any of the other amendments, but they aren't trying to do that and instead simply want to ignore them and do what they please.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

bulldog10

Jan-17-13 2:34 PM

Stangv8, they didn't think they had the votes for prohibition either. But it happened.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

bulldog10

Jan-17-13 2:30 PM

Look at it this way, at one time you could drink, then by amendment you could not drink, then by amendent you now can again. Just because the 2nd amendment states something now doesn't mean it can't be changed. And it will, wait, watch and see.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

bulldog10

Jan-17-13 2:27 PM

And its been said before, it doesn't matter what the law or 2nd amendment says its what the law will read after its been amended again. Ha Ha

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

bulldog10

Jan-17-13 2:26 PM

Darkstar, by your account that still leaves many states without your automatic law. Now then, can you have a automatic weapon in some of the cities in those 39 states?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

kcw007

Jan-17-13 1:36 PM

From 2008 SCOTUS decision "District of Columbia v Heller. Held: 1.(a) The Amendment's prefactory clause annouces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The clauses text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. (b.).....The "militia" comprized all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense......"

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

localresident

Jan-17-13 1:07 PM

...YOu can buy surplus tanks, helicopters, etc. in the U.K. and DRIVE THE TANKS ON PUBLIC ROADS LEGALLY....

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

localresident

Jan-17-13 1:04 PM

If I have the funds, and i can reasonably maintain them, I should be able to buy a tank. Collectors do. YOu can buy surplus tanks, helicopters, etc. Someone in the U.S. even owns a Harrier jet:

www . thebaynet . com/news/index . cfm/fa/viewstory/story_ID/10168 (remove the spaces between the dots)

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

stangv8

Jan-17-13 12:52 PM

Darkstar, you’re right on the money. To own a full automatic weapon, you need a Class 3 FFL. To get one you basically have to go through the same type of security check you would need for a security clearance. To change the Constitution requires a vote by 2/3 of congress and then ¾ of the states and that isn’t going to happen. Because of population, a small minority of states can control national elections but when it comes to Constitutional Amendments, small population states like Montana and Wyoming carry as much weight as NY, CA, and IL. Any change to the 2nd Amendment isn’t going to happen. What could happen though are five of nine politically connected lawyers to rule from the bench against what the words say.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 99 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web