Gun Laws Debate - Pine Bush, NY

Discuss the national Gun Laws debate in Pine Bush, NY.

Does the US need to reform its gun laws?

Pine Bush thinks US gun laws are fine.
Not at all
 
3
Yes
 
0
Undecided
 
0

Vote now in Pine Bush:

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
No name

Chester, NY

#1 Mar 10, 2013
We are on a tight enough leash as it is just because one phyco had the freak chance of getting an assult rifle and shooting up a school doesn't mean we have to swipe a gun out of everybody's hands
Doc

Millsboro, DE

#2 Mar 12, 2013
The 2nd amendment, which guarantees our right to own and carry firearms, was put in The Constitution to protect us from the government taking complete control over us. This is the reason they don't approve of it? Take your blinders off.

“Just the FACTS!”

Since: Apr 10

Ellenville, NY

#3 Mar 12, 2013
Your ignorance of the 2nd Amendment's meaning and purpose is staggering, but that is how effective the NRA has been in brainwashing America, or as former Chief Justice Warren Burger said: "the Second Amendment has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud - I repeat the word 'fraud'- on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."

The REAL purpose (beyond Madison's desire to weaken the anti-federalist faction by giving them some boiler-plate sops) was to assure the states' rights to maintain their established state militias against the Federal government failing to arm them, as the Constitution required, and thus weakening them and allowing a standing army, "the bane of liberty," to be built on the ruins.

"Keep and Bear Arms" is NOT the same as "own and carry firearms," as much as you and the NRA would like to change how the authors of the Constitution and BoR used those terms. To get educated on this, please go to http://kryo.com/2ndAmen/

Oh, and "no name," where is anyone suggesting the absolutist paranoid fantasy of "swiping a gun out of everybody's hands"?
Doc

Millsboro, DE

#4 Mar 14, 2013
Obama, Pelosi, Krulick, and Michael Moore don't want OUR people to have guns. And they will destroy YOUR Constitution for the same reason that Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and Castro took away THEIR citizens' rights. That's just as simple as it gets. Don't complicate it with rhetoric and insults.

“Just the FACTS!”

Since: Apr 10

Ellenville, NY

#5 Mar 14, 2013
Whoa, strawslinger! Don't lump me in with "Obama, Pelosi, Michael Moore"! Where did you get the idea that I didn't want anyone to have access to weapons of various types?(Or even that THEY don't? Care to support your blatant assertion?) Just making up nonsense like that is typical of those who won't and can't address the simple facts I HAVE posted, and the details that support it.

As a public official, I took an oath to SUPPORT AND DEFEND the Constitution; the difference is that *I* understand it and YOU probably don't. One way to "destroy" the constitution (besides the actual removal of actual rights, as the past several administrations and Congresses HAVE done, and I don't see the 2nd Amendment fanatics doing anything to address the loss of THOSE rights, or how having guns WILL or CAN address them) is to ignore what it actually says and replace the actual meanings with modern fantasy versions.

And just listing various dictators doesn't explain WHAT they did; Hitler, for example, RELAXED gun ownership laws in 1938, from the Weimar Republic gun laws that were designed to prevent thugs like him from using guns to terrorize and brutalize (much good THAT seemed to do), letting MORE German citizens, at younger age, have MORE access to MORE guns! See the difference between KNOWING history and just making it up or believing nonsense you've been told? Hitler already HAD power for years so didn't need to implement harsher gun laws to get or keep it. And Stalin put millions of guns in the hands of citizens to repel the Nazis. But what of it?

What is "simple" is that if you don't understand the words Madison and Congress used to WRITE the Constitution and Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, AS THEY USED THEM, they might as well be written in Chinese. Don't complicate it with irrelevant references to 20th century events, or INSULT ME by lumping me in with others, when all I'm doing is pointing out the FACTS that you seem unwilling to face and address. READ the essays at the site I linked to and then, when you are sufficiently educated, then come back and try to refute anything I posted there.
NYStateOfMind

New York, NY

#6 Apr 5, 2013
Krulick wrote:
Your ignorance of the 2nd Amendment's meaning and purpose is staggering, but that is how effective the NRA has been in brainwashing America, or as former Chief Justice Warren Burger said: "the Second Amendment has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud - I repeat the word 'fraud'- on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."
The REAL purpose (beyond Madison's desire to weaken the anti-federalist faction by giving them some boiler-plate sops) was to assure the states' rights to maintain their established state militias against the Federal government failing to arm them, as the Constitution required, and thus weakening them and allowing a standing army, "the bane of liberty," to be built on the ruins.
"Keep and Bear Arms" is NOT the same as "own and carry firearms," as much as you and the NRA would like to change how the authors of the Constitution and BoR used those terms. To get educated on this, please go to http://kryo.com/2ndAmen/
Oh, and "no name," where is anyone suggesting the absolutist paranoid fantasy of "swiping a gun out of everybody's hands"?
Your little diatribe has already been soundly debunked.
You were put in your place and shown to be the stooge of the East.
NYStateOfMind

New York, NY

#7 Apr 5, 2013
Krulick wrote:
Whoa, strawslinger! Don't lump me in with "Obama, Pelosi, Michael Moore"! Where did you get the idea that I didn't want anyone to have access to weapons of various types?(Or even that THEY don't? Care to support your blatant assertion?) Just making up nonsense like that is typical of those who won't and can't address the simple facts I HAVE posted, and the details that support it.
As a public official, I took an oath to SUPPORT AND DEFEND the Constitution; the difference is that *I* understand it and YOU probably don't. One way to "destroy" the constitution (besides the actual removal of actual rights, as the past several administrations and Congresses HAVE done, and I don't see the 2nd Amendment fanatics doing anything to address the loss of THOSE rights, or how having guns WILL or CAN address them) is to ignore what it actually says and replace the actual meanings with modern fantasy versions.
And just listing various dictators doesn't explain WHAT they did; Hitler, for example, RELAXED gun ownership laws in 1938, from the Weimar Republic gun laws that were designed to prevent thugs like him from using guns to terrorize and brutalize (much good THAT seemed to do), letting MORE German citizens, at younger age, have MORE access to MORE guns! See the difference between KNOWING history and just making it up or believing nonsense you've been told? Hitler already HAD power for years so didn't need to implement harsher gun laws to get or keep it. And Stalin put millions of guns in the hands of citizens to repel the Nazis. But what of it?
What is "simple" is that if you don't understand the words Madison and Congress used to WRITE the Constitution and Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, AS THEY USED THEM, they might as well be written in Chinese. Don't complicate it with irrelevant references to 20th century events, or INSULT ME by lumping me in with others, when all I'm doing is pointing out the FACTS that you seem unwilling to face and address. READ the essays at the site I linked to and then, when you are sufficiently educated, then come back and try to refute anything I posted there.
You're in over your head when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, KKKrulick.

“Just the FACTS!”

Since: Apr 10

Ellenville, NY

#8 Apr 5, 2013
NYStateOfMind wrote:
<quoted text>Your little diatribe has already been soundly debunked.
You were put in your place and shown to be the stooge of the East.
Just blatantly asserting that I have been debunked doesn't make it so. WHERE has this happened? WHO did it? HOW did they do it? WHAT did they say? WHY should it be accepted as "debunking"? WHO the hell are YOU, O anonymous coward, that we should take YOU seriously or care what YOU think? Without evidence, your claim is worthless.

“Just the FACTS!”

Since: Apr 10

Ellenville, NY

#9 Apr 5, 2013
NYStateOfMind wrote:
<quoted text>You're in over your head when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, KKKrulick.
Just blatantly asserting this doesn't make it so. Where have YOU or anyone refuted what I have said? Where have YOU or anyone shown my source material to be incorrect or irrelevant? Where is YOUR expertise and proof of it whereby YOU can make such a claim?
Doc

Millsboro, DE

#10 Apr 6, 2013
"Need" is immaterial. The Constitution rules, not liberal rationalization and emotion.
Hellenic

Los Angeles, CA

#11 May 28, 2013
Doc wrote:
"Need" is immaterial. The Constitution rules, not liberal rationalization and emotion.
That doesn't matter to a tool like Krulick.

“Just the FACTS!”

Since: Apr 10

Ellenville, NY

#12 May 28, 2013
Hellenic wrote:
<quoted text>That doesn't matter to a tool like Krulick.
So you blatantly assert. My essays are firmly grounded in the language and history of the Constitution; there is nothing there based on "liberal rationalization" or "emotion"! Nor on some modern concept of "need." Again, I challenge anyone to find any errors in my sources or their application in drawing the conclusions I reached. Ad hominem blatant assertions don't refute anything.
Watch Eye

Omaha, NE

#13 May 29, 2013
Krulick wrote:
<quoted text>
So you blatantly assert. My essays are firmly grounded in the language and history of the Constitution; there is nothing there based on "liberal rationalization" or "emotion"! Nor on some modern concept of "need." Again, I challenge anyone to find any errors in my sources or their application in drawing the conclusions I reached. Ad hominem blatant assertions don't refute anything.
You site is BS. And you're quite the spewer of it.

“Just the FACTS!”

Since: Apr 10

Ellenville, NY

#14 May 29, 2013
Watch Eye wrote:
<quoted text>You site is BS. And you're quite the spewer of it.
Calling it BS doesn't make it so, nor refute anything I've said or written. Why don't you give a specific example of any "BS" and show WHY you believe it to be, and then prove your claim with superior evidence or logic. Otherwise, your mere blatant assertion is worthless.
Watch Eye

Omaha, NE

#15 May 31, 2013
Ol' Klueless Krulick is a hoot. His site was shown to Dave Kopel and he laughed out loud at the stupidity Krulick tried to use to stitch his thoery together.

“Just the FACTS!”

Since: Apr 10

Ellenville, NY

#16 May 31, 2013
Watch Eye wrote:
Ol' Klueless Krulick is a hoot. His site was shown to Dave Kopel and he laughed out loud at the stupidity Krulick tried to use to stitch his thoery together.
Ad hominem name calling refutes nothing. Dave Kopel has his own biases and has been shown to be flawed in his own blatant assertion claims. Just blatantly asserting Kopel "laughed" (any first hand confirmation?) or that it was declared "stupid" doesn't prove it so; I'm still waiting for SPECIFIC examples of ANY inaccurate or flawed data or refutation of the logic used to "stitch the theory together." You guys are still batting zero.

“Just the FACTS!”

Since: Apr 10

Ellenville, NY

#17 May 31, 2013
Do you want to know how one shows that someone is a "hoot" and "laugh out loud stupid"? You show how the person's specific claims are moot or irrelevant and don't hold up under scrutiny. That is what Professor David Yassky did by ripping Kopel a new one: http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Yassky2.htm

Kopel has called cases "second amendment cases" that aren't, and said they support an individual rights interpretation when nothing even close can be found, except in HIS idiosyncratic criteria!

As it was, I dealt with this particular nonsense a long time back, almost a decade ago, with the help of some convenient legal scholars who analyzed his work and tore it apart! Yep, NRA hack Kopel just called ANY case that had even the most remote mention of the 2nd Amen, with NO actual comment on it, and no ruling that turned on it, and no ruling or even dicta that dealt with it (that is, they were NOT by any conventional definition "2nd Amen cases") a "2nd Amen Case"! And then, he just made blatant assertions that they indeed supported an individual rights interpretation based on HIS idiosyncratic and subjective criteria!

When some particular cases were studied in depth, it was clear Kopel was blowing smoke about their relevance, and overstating the "individual" nature of any mention. "Yep, that's an individual rights support. Yep, that one too, oh and that one, AND that one..."

Here's from ONE of the replies:

David Yassky, Assistant Professor, Brooklyn Law School.
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Yassky2.htm

"... For example, the very first case Kopel discusses is Spencer v.
Kemna,[22] in which Justice Stevens, in dissent, notes that "An official determination that a person has committed a crime may .
.. result in tangible harms such as imprisonment [or] loss of the right to vote or to bear arms." [23](Like most of the cases Kopel discusses, Spencer v. Kemna has nothing to do with the Second Amendment or with restrictions on firearms. The case decides whether a habeas corpus petition is mooted by the prisoner's release. Moreover, there is no reason to think that Justice Stevens was referring to the constitutional right to bear arms...

In fact, Spencer and Poe are quite typical of almost all the cases canvassed by Professor Kopel. Most of these cases mention the Second Amendment in passing, usually along with other Bill of Rights provisions. Some refer to the "liberty" protected by the Amendment, providing an excuse for speculation about what that liberty must entail. But on close analysis, these cases are no more enlightening than Spencer or Poe.[Page 197]..."
---

I don't have room to post the full argument and detailed logic and evidence that Yassky used to show Kopel to be a shallow hack blowing smoke, so go to the link and read the WHOLE essay. After reading it, I "laughed out loud at the stupidity (Ol' Klueless Kopel) tried to use to stitch his thoery (sic) together"!
Watch Eye

Des Moines, IA

#18 Jun 3, 2013
Kopel responded to every one of Yasky's charges and dispatched them with ease. Halbrook had already taken Yassky to the woodshed 2 years ago.
Even Dershowitz& Tribe who are both anti-gun have stated unequivocally that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.

A moron like you is never going to see the light.
And if Kopel is a hack, that sure makes you a shitforbrains yokel. Which you established a long time ago.

“Just the FACTS!”

Since: Apr 10

Ellenville, NY

#19 Jun 3, 2013
Watch Eye wrote:
Kopel responded to every one of Yasky's charges and dispatched them with ease. Halbrook had already taken Yassky to the woodshed 2 years ago.
Even Dershowitz& Tribe who are both anti-gun have stated unequivocally that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.
A moron like you is never going to see the light.
And if Kopel is a hack, that sure makes you a shitforbrains yokel. Which you established a long time ago.
So you continue to blatantly assert.

Why don't you link to Kopel's dispatching of Yassky so we can decide for ourselves if what you say is so; your mere say-so isn't good enough.

The same NRA hack Halbrook that Garry Wills showed to be a joke?

"Take the case of Stephen P. Halbrook, one of the central
figures in this new literature. His imaginative manipulation of
evidence runs to arguments like this, from his 1989 book, A
Right to Bear Arms: the Second Amendment cannot be referring
only to military weapons, since a Federal-period dictionary
(Noah Webster's), under "bear," lists "to bear arms in a coat"
as one usage, and only a handgun could be carried in a coat
pocket. Mr. Halbrook does not recognize the term "coat of arms,"
a decidedly military form of heraldry presided over by the
College of Arms (by Mr. Halbrook's interpretative standards, a
medical institution specializing in the brachium)... We are told
that arms, all the equipage of war, can be borne in a coat
pocket. Heraldry is mixed with haberdashery, humbug with
history, and scholarly looking footnotes with simple-minded
literalism. By the methods used in the Standard Model, we could
argue that a good eighteenth-century meaning for "quarter" shows
that the Third Amendment was intended to prevent soldiers from
having their limbs lopped off in private homes...(Garry Wills)

Dershowitz is simply wrong, and uses the same blatant assertion approach; nowhere does he go into the depth I did to prove his claim; and Tribe has backtracked, because he was pissed how the hoplophiles misrepresented him and used him as a poster boy. Better to go with Akhil Amar, a conservative constitutional scholar who I quote extensively to support MY argument (see next post), or Robert Bork or Warren Burger. But simple quotes by themselves are not the point; MY essays are so detailed and comprehensive, that one would have to take apart the entire body of evidence, and NOBODY has done that!

“Just the FACTS!”

Since: Apr 10

Ellenville, NY

#20 Jun 3, 2013
Second Thoughts: What the right to bear arms really means

by Akhil Reed Amar

( http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/103w... )

The amendment speaks of a right of "the people" collectively rather than a right of "persons" individually.

And it uses a distinctly military phrase: "bear arms." A deer hunter or target shooter carries a gun but does not, strictly speaking, bear arms. The military connotation was even more obvious in an earlier draft of the amendment, which contained additional language that "no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." Even in the final version, note how the military phrase "bear arms" is sandwiched between a clause that talks about the "militia" and a clause (the Third Amendment) that regulates the quartering of "soldiers" in times of "war" and "peace." Likewise, state constitutions in place in 1789 consistently used the phrase "bear arms" in military contexts and no other.

... anachronistically, libertarians read "the people" to mean atomized private persons, each hunting in his own private Idaho, rather than the citizenry acting collectively.

But, when the Constitution speaks of "the people" rather than "persons," the collective connotation is primary.

"We the People" in the preamble do ordain and establish the Constitution as public citizens meeting together in conventions and acting in concert, not as private individuals pursuing our respective hobbies. The only other reference to "the people" in the Philadelphia Constitution of 1787 appears a sentence away from the preamble, and here, too, the meaning is public and political, not private and individualistic. Every two years, "the people" -- that is, the voters -- elect the House.

To see the key distinction another way, recall that women in 1787 had the rights of "persons" (such as freedom to worship and protections of privacy in their homes) but did not directly participate in the acts of "the people" -- they did not vote in constitutional conventions or for Congress, nor were they part of the militia/people at the heart of the Second Amendment.

The rest of the Bill of Rights confirms this communitarian reading. The core of the First Amendmentís assembly clause, which textually abuts the Second Amendment, is the right of "the people" -- in essence, voters -- to "assemble" in constitutional conventions and other political conclaves. So, too, the core rights retained and reserved to "the people" in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments were rights of the people collectively to govern themselves democratically."

I cite many, many authoritative scholars and primary sources in my essays, so to pick on any one single point MISSES the entirety of the argument, which is incredibly consistent over the entire range of what I cover: language, history, court rulings, grammar, etc.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Pine Bush Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Orange County Choppers' Mikey Teutul opens gall... (Nov '10) Dec 19 Dumbledorg zortfizz 169
Where's John Tansosch Jr.? Dec 10 U mean 4
Phillipsport gets $25,000 'Golden Feather' at S... Dec 9 james 1
missing pants Nov 26 COUNTRY BOOTY BUM... 1
Developer Lamm loses 2 challenges (Apr '14) Nov '14 lover 21
Pine Bush district fights negative image linked... (Mar '14) Nov '14 love pine bush 5
Editorial: Bloomingburg, Mamakating offering a ... Nov '14 sherrillstar 5
Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]