Gun Control Debate - Ellenville, NY

Discuss the national Gun Control debate in Ellenville, NY.

Would you support a ban on handguns?

Ellenville opposes
Oppose
 
7
Support
 
0

Vote now in Ellenville:

Comments
1 - 20 of 170 Comments Last updated -
First Prev
of 9
Next Last

“Just the FACTS!”

Since: Apr 10

Ellenville, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Oct 12, 2010
 
This particular question, as framed, is bogus. Besides being impractical to enforce, it is cast in absolutist terms that doesn't allow for a range of options. Certain weapons can be, have been, and should always be "banned" from certain places and circumstances (courtrooms, legislatures, where a political assassination could occur, etc.), and be restricted to disallow certain persons from possessing or carrying them (felons, mentally incompetent, minors, those under legal restraint due to domestic violence or history of threats, etc.). Private businesses can "ban" them from their premises, whether workplaces or public settings such as bars. And states and municipalities, under the inherent police powers of the 10th Amendment, can REGULATE possession and use of ALL weapons within their jurisdiction, based on their particular concerns, and the WILL of the PEOPLE of that polity; regulation is NOT the same as "infringement," and the 2nd Amendment has NEVER limited the ability of state or local governments to establish regulations that limit or set requirements regarding the possession, transport, or use of any class of weapon, or who may do so. Even the current revisionist Supreme Court ruling that pulls "an individual right to own and possess firearms" out of thin air (it ISN'T IN the Constitution, or in the writings and debates of the Founding era!), doesn't refute that, and still allows for "reasonable regulation," as the Constitution is NOT a suicide pact of absolutes!

The 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with this question! For proof, and other information that might actually educate you on this, go to http://kryo.com/2ndAmen/
jaclyn

Ellenville, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Jan 26, 2011
 
My dad had a large collection of weapons, As soon a he passed away, those were the first things I got rid of. Legitamally, of course for example all the serial numbers were all posted. That's a tough poll to vote on. People do hunt. I am undecided.
troll

Hurleyville, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
May 17, 2011
 
There will always be firearms,best to go git yer own.I am a hunter I carry rifles and shotguns.I do not own a handgun because I haven't found a sporting use for one that is worth the frusrations and red tape involved.
Regis

Gainesville, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
May 17, 2011
 
Krulick wrote:
This particular question, as framed, is bogus. Besides being impractical to enforce, it is cast in absolutist terms that doesn't allow for a range of options. Certain weapons can be, have been, and should always be "banned" from certain places and circumstances (courtrooms, legislatures, where a political assassination could occur, etc.), and be restricted to disallow certain persons from possessing or carrying them (felons, mentally incompetent, minors, those under legal restraint due to domestic violence or history of threats, etc.). Private businesses can "ban" them from their premises, whether workplaces or public settings such as bars.
Private businesses are in fact commercial property and are immune to prosecution for disarming their patrons. Not a very smart thing to do.
Krulick wrote:
And states and municipalities, under the inherent police powers of the 10th Amendment, can REGULATE possession and use of ALL weapons within their jurisdiction, based on their particular concerns, and the WILL of the PEOPLE of that polity;
Not where it infringes on the right to keep and bear arms. Heller & McDonald saw to that.
Krulick wrote:
regulation is NOT the same as "infringement," and the 2nd Amendment has NEVER limited the ability of state or local governments to establish regulations that limit or set requirements regarding the possession, transport, or use of any class of weapon, or who may do so.
Regulation only applies to militia use and the 2nd Amendment is a prohibition on the government from infringing on that right without due process. Nothing in the 2nd Amendment is consistent with gun control.
Krulick wrote:
Even the current revisionist Supreme Court ruling that pulls "an individual right to own and possess firearms" out of thin air (it ISN'T IN the Constitution, or in the writings and debates of the Founding era!), doesn't refute that, and still allows for "reasonable regulation," as the Constitution is NOT a suicide pact of absolutes!
The right to keep and bear arms is and always was an individual right. That you could never see that is your own problem. Tribe, Dershowitz and other scholars saw that even though they're anti gun.
Krulick wrote:
The 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with this question! For proof, and other information that might actually educate you on this, go to http://kryo.com/2ndAmen/
Moot point. The second amendment is affirmed on the people, not the militia. And SCOTUS was UNANIMOUS in the "individual" interpretation. So much for your "revisionist" angle.
Regis

Gainesville, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
May 17, 2011
 
And this smokes your "collective" theory.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

“Just the FACTS!”

Since: Apr 10

Ellenville, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
May 17, 2011
 
You misread Heller and McDonald. Nothing there has overturned previous rulings in this regard, such as Morton Grove; even the most recent SCotUS ruling supports what I said about regulation (which, as I pointed out in http://kryo.com/2ndAmen/Terms.htm is NOT the same as infringement). Regulation of WEAPONS has nothing to do with the militia or infringement of the militia; the 2nd Amen is about BEARING ARMS (which is militia service) and NOT about weapons per se. ONLY the term "well-regulated" is about the militia, and that term is also explained at the above page.
Nothing in the 2nd Amen PREVENTS local control of weapons! Even the authors of the 2nd Amen and similar articles at the state level during that period passed local ordinances regulating and restricting arms of all types, even gunpowder. Please read the rest of my essays.
Just saying the right is an individual right and always has been is NOT supported by the historical evidence which I presented in great detail, nor in 200+ years of court rulings. The problem is that you are confusing the legal term "keep and bear arms" which had a strictly military meaning, with "own and carry guns" which is simply not what the Constitution refers to. Tribe and Dershowitz changed their minds and clarified their statements when they got tired of being misused by gun advocates; they are not infallible either. It's not my "problem" if my evidence is something you refuse to see for yourself and just assume you know what it is I've presented.
Well, if you don't know what the term "the people" meant to Madison and the first Congress, and how it and "the militia" were used interchangeably, then there's no point arguing with you as you are arguing from ignorance.
The recent SCotUS decision was NOT unanimous, and it simply ignored all stare decisis practice and precedents; it just pulled the "individual right" claim from thin air, and could not provide ONE historical or legal precedent to support. That the militia is the REASON for the amendment cannot be ignored, which is why every single preceding ruling, of which I posted many, RIGHTLY interprets the language of the amendment and the historical support material I presented. The current rogue court simply yielded to their own ignorance of the law and language or they cynically bowed to political and ideological pressure.
Finally, your "cite" does NOT refute my analysis; it takes very selective material, either out of context, or misinterprets it by leaving out crucial parts, and simply ignores more relevant and over-riding material from more relevant sources, like the first Congress debates ON the amendment itself. I address and refute practically every part of that cite in my own essays; read them and learn! A key essay is the one dealing with TERMS! If you don't know how the authors actually USED the words, they might as well be in Chinese as far as your understanding. For example, by definition AND usage, THE PEOPLE is a collective term that refers to the "body politic in its collective and political capacity" and does not refer to ALL individual persons AS individuals, as say, freedom of religion (which IS an individual right NOT modified by the more restrictive term THE PEOPLE) does.
I challenge you to read through ALL my essays and find ONE thing YOU can directly refute with superior evidence or logic.
Kurt Wickham

White Plains, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
May 18, 2011
 
only bad guys would have guns if this happeded
Louiston

Des Moines, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
May 18, 2011
 
Krulick wrote:
You misread Heller and McDonald. Nothing there has overturned previous rulings in this regard, such as Morton Grove; even the most recent SCotUS ruling supports what I said about regulation (which, as I pointed out in http://kryo.com/2ndAmen/Terms.htm is NOT the same as infringement). Regulation of WEAPONS has nothing to do with the militia or infringement of the militia; the 2nd Amen is about BEARING ARMS (which is militia service) and NOT about weapons per se. ONLY the term "well-regulated" is about the militia, and that term is also explained at the above page.
Nothing in the 2nd Amen PREVENTS local control of weapons! Even the authors of the 2nd Amen and similar articles at the state level during that period passed local ordinances regulating and restricting arms of all types, even gunpowder. Please read the rest of my essays.
Just saying the right is an individual right and always has been is NOT supported by the historical evidence which I presented in great detail, nor in 200+ years of court rulings. The problem is that you are confusing the legal term "keep and bear arms" which had a strictly military meaning, with "own and carry guns" which is simply not what the Constitution refers to. Tribe and Dershowitz changed their minds and clarified their statements when they got tired of being misused by gun advocates; they are not infallible either. It's not my "problem" if my evidence is something you refuse to see for yourself and just assume you know what it is I've presented.
Well, if you don't know what the term "the people" meant to Madison and the first Congress, and how it and "the militia" were used interchangeably, then there's no point arguing with you as you are arguing from ignorance.
The recent SCotUS decision was NOT unanimous, and it simply ignored all stare decisis practice and precedents; it just pulled the "individual right" claim from thin air, and could not provide ONE historical or legal precedent to support. That the militia is the REASON for the amendment cannot be ignored, which is why every single preceding ruling, of which I posted many, RIGHTLY interprets the language of the amendment and the historical support material I presented. The current rogue court simply yielded to their own ignorance of the law and language or they cynically bowed to political and ideological pressure.
Finally, your "cite" does NOT refute my analysis; it takes very selective material, either out of context, or misinterprets it by leaving out crucial parts, and simply ignores more relevant and over-riding material from more relevant sources, like the first Congress debates ON the amendment itself. I address and refute practically every part of that cite in my own essays; read them and learn! A key essay is the one dealing with TERMS! If you don't know how the authors actually USED the words, they might as well be in Chinese as far as your understanding. For example, by definition AND usage, THE PEOPLE is a collective term that refers to the "body politic in its collective and political capacity" and does not refer to ALL individual persons AS individuals, as say, freedom of religion (which IS an individual right NOT modified by the more restrictive term THE PEOPLE) does.
I challenge you to read through ALL my essays and find ONE thing YOU can directly refute with superior evidence or logic.
Hey, go here. Your argument is being tried by a fellow named bob2bob. However, he's being trounced (as you will) by legaleagel45 and Highlander.

You probably won't though because they pull your logic apart like a forensoc scientist.

http://www.topix.com/forum/guns/TPC4KNQUBH9F5...
Carlos

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
May 18, 2011
 
Louiston wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, go here. Your argument is being tried by a fellow named bob2bob. However, he's being trounced (as you will) by legaleagel45 and Highlander.
You probably won't though because they pull your logic apart like a forensoc scientist.
http://www.topix.com/forum/guns/TPC4KNQUBH9F5...
Yeah, ol bob is still peddling his "collectivist" twaddle and necessary connection to militia codswallop. Not sure they really need another loser like the idiot you respnded to.

“Just the FACTS!”

Since: Apr 10

Ellenville, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
May 18, 2011
 
Kurt Wickham wrote:
only bad guys would have guns if this happeded
If WHAT happened? That is a lame and unsupported assertion, and a strawman claim that no sensible person argues.

“Just the FACTS!”

Since: Apr 10

Ellenville, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
May 18, 2011
 
Louiston wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, go here. Your argument is being tried by a fellow named bob2bob. However, he's being trounced (as you will) by legaleagel45 and Highlander.
You probably won't though because they pull your logic apart like a forensoc scientist.
http://www.topix.com/forum/guns/TPC4KNQUBH9F5...
I don't have to "go" anywhere. My comprehensive series of essays is thoroughly researched and airtight. Any honest, objective, rational person who reads the whole of it will have to come to the same conclusion I did. I tried to summarize some of the main points above, but the support documentation takes hours to read, and I can't post it here. I don't know what bob2bob's argument is, or what his support evidence consists of, so whether "he" is being "trounced" (YOUR opinion merely) is irrelevant. MY argument is based on MY support evidence; if "highlander" or someone else wants to confront and try to refute MY evidence, do it HERE; I don't have to go to some other site and justify to the persons there what my evidence proves. Since I don't know what "logic" is being offered there (other than it isn't mine) I don't have to defend "it"! If someone wants to try to "pull apart" MY logic, they have to go through MY essays and deal with what *I* say, not what someone else says. Unless YOU read my essays, there's no point in arguing with you, as you'd be arguing from ignorance. See?

“Just the FACTS!”

Since: Apr 10

Ellenville, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
May 18, 2011
 
Calling things twaddle doesn't make them so. Calling persons losers or idiots doesn't make them so. But on THIS thread in THIS forum, if you want to engage in debate over MY statements and arguments, you'd better come prepared with more than blatant assertions and ad hominem side-stepping.

All you have to do is go to the site I posted ( http://kryo.com/2ndAmen/ ) READ IT ALL, and find ONE SINGLE ERROR of fact or flaw in MY logic or evidence; failing to do that, you prove nothing, refute nothing, and have just your unsubstantiated beliefs to stand on, which are worthless of themselves. Get it?
Regis

Gainesville, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
May 18, 2011
 
That's okay, we understand. Your propaganda is not portable.

“Just the FACTS!”

Since: Apr 10

Ellenville, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
May 18, 2011
 
"WE"? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

Calling it propaganda doesn't make it so. People who can only "argue" in cliched soundbites and blatant assertions and ad hominems would rather not have to deal with details, context, history, explanations, or extended support material. "We" understand.

Now, if you want to argue the specifics of my evidence, just cite anything I've written that you don't like or agree with, show where it's flawed, and I'd be happy to educate you on where you err.
Arnold

White Plains, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
May 19, 2011
 
I agree
Kurt Wickham wrote:
only bad guys would have guns if this happeded
Arnold

White Plains, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
May 19, 2011
 
as you know, a ban on handguns
Krulick wrote:
<quoted text>
If WHAT happened? That is a lame and unsupported assertion, and a strawman claim that no sensible person argues.
Kurt Wickham

White Plains, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
May 19, 2011
 
a ban on Handguns
Krulick wrote:
<quoted text>
If WHAT happened? That is a lame and unsupported assertion, and a strawman claim that no sensible person argues.

“Just the FACTS!”

Since: Apr 10

Ellenville, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
May 19, 2011
 
And I refer you back to my FIRST reply, in which I showed how the very concept of a "ban on handguns" is bogus as framed, so all assumptions based on that premise are moot.
GreatIdea

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
May 19, 2011
 
Arnold wrote:
as you know, a ban on handguns
<quoted text>
There won't be a ban on hand guns. It would be political suicide.
Rman

Hurleyville, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
May 19, 2011
 
why the criminals buy it in the blackmarket.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 9
Next Last
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Ellenville Discussions

Search the Ellenville Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
NY Who do you support for Governor in New York in ... (Oct '10) 22 min Sham Hanutty 6,348
NY Who do you support for U.S. Senate in New York ... (Oct '10) Thu Steve Douchy 6,364
NY New York Primary Election Sept 14: Will you vote? (Sep '10) Wed Sham Hannuty 16,777
NY Who do you support for Comptroller in New York ... (Oct '10) Jul 20 Sham Hanutty 436
All Sullivan budgets easily pass Jun '14 Michael Oleary 2
NY Who do you support for Attorney General in New ... (Oct '10) Jun '14 Cmon Already 754
Brook Lake (May '08) Jun '14 JohnnyQ 7

Related Topics

Ellenville Jobs

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]