NY Gov Gun Laws...

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

I'm not sure who mentioned it earlier, but someone said something to the effect of letting everyone exercise their rights to free speech. If it truly is hateful and repulsive, like the Nazi's or Westboro, it will not draw people to it and those organizations will wither away.

With that in mind I found it interesting that two granddaughters of Fred Phelps, the pastor at Westboro Baptist, have just recently left the church.

There has to be common sense to balance the First Ammendment purists. The courts could take care of that since almost every case that hits the higher level federal courts has a strong elemement of subjectivity.. The Nazis at Skokie were trying to incite a riot. That's obvious to anyone who has studied the goals of the more extreme Neo-Nazi types. The Klan tried to do the same thing in a town I was teaching in at that time by getting a permit to put on a parade consisting of just themselves. The local govt granted the permit but should have been allowed to charge them for all the extra law enforcement that was necessarily provided. (if this was a perfect world)

And the question remains. whose common sense? I understand what you are getting at, and it seems reasonable, but who decides these issues, or do we let speech happen?

[JCline0429]

I'm not sure who mentioned it earlier, but someone said something to the effect of letting everyone exercise their rights to free speech. If it truly is hateful and repulsive, like the Nazi's or Westboro, it will not draw people to it and those organizations will wither away.

With that in mind I found it interesting that two granddaughters of Fred Phelps, the pastor at Westboro Baptist, have just recently left the church.

There has to be common sense to balance the First Ammendment purists. The courts could take care of that since almost every case that hits the higher level federal courts has a strong elemement of subjectivity.. The Nazis at Skokie were trying to incite a riot. That's obvious to anyone who has studied the goals of the more extreme Neo-Nazi types. The Klan tried to do the same thing in a town I was teaching in at that time by getting a permit to put on a parade consisting of just themselves. The local govt granted the permit but should have been allowed to charge them for all the extra law enforcement that was necessarily provided. (if this was a perfect world)

And the question remains. whose common sense? I understand what you are getting at, and it seems reasonable, but who decides these issues, or do we let speech happen?

..in short, a judicial system which takes as much interest in individual rights as the rights of free speech for the general citizenry. But as I said earlier, this is not a perfect world.

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

I'm not sure who mentioned it earlier, but someone said something to the effect of letting everyone exercise their rights to free speech. If it truly is hateful and repulsive, like the Nazi's or Westboro, it will not draw people to it and those organizations will wither away.

With that in mind I found it interesting that two granddaughters of Fred Phelps, the pastor at Westboro Baptist, have just recently left the church.

There has to be common sense to balance the First Ammendment purists. The courts could take care of that since almost every case that hits the higher level federal courts has a strong elemement of subjectivity.. The Nazis at Skokie were trying to incite a riot. That's obvious to anyone who has studied the goals of the more extreme Neo-Nazi types. The Klan tried to do the same thing in a town I was teaching in at that time by getting a permit to put on a parade consisting of just themselves. The local govt granted the permit but should have been allowed to charge them for all the extra law enforcement that was necessarily provided. (if this was a perfect world)

And the question remains. whose common sense? I understand what you are getting at, and it seems reasonable, but who decides these issues, or do we let speech happen?

..in short, a judicial system which takes as much interest in individual rights as the rights of free speech for the general citizenry. But as I said earlier, this is not a perfect world.

The judicial system does rule on these controversial cases, otherwise they would not be controversial to begin with. Time and again the court sides with speech over others rights to not hear the speech. Now I do think we are going down a very bad road with Citizens United, but that gets back to the issue of what is a "person."

[JCline0429]

I'm not sure who mentioned it earlier, but someone said something to the effect of letting everyone exercise their rights to free speech. If it truly is hateful and repulsive, like the Nazi's or Westboro, it will not draw people to it and those organizations will wither away.

With that in mind I found it interesting that two granddaughters of Fred Phelps, the pastor at Westboro Baptist, have just recently left the church.

There has to be common sense to balance the First Ammendment purists. The courts could take care of that since almost every case that hits the higher level federal courts has a strong elemement of subjectivity.. The Nazis at Skokie were trying to incite a riot. That's obvious to anyone who has studied the goals of the more extreme Neo-Nazi types. The Klan tried to do the same thing in a town I was teaching in at that time by getting a permit to put on a parade consisting of just themselves. The local govt granted the permit but should have been allowed to charge them for all the extra law enforcement that was necessarily provided. (if this was a perfect world)

And the question remains. whose common sense? I understand what you are getting at, and it seems reasonable, but who decides these issues, or do we let speech happen?

..in short, a judicial system which takes as much interest in individual rights as the rights of free speech for the general citizenry. But as I said earlier, this is not a perfect world.

The judicial system does rule on these controversial cases, otherwise they would not be controversial to begin with. Time and again the court sides with speech over others rights to not hear the speech. Now I do think we are going down a very bad road with Citizens United, but that gets back to the issue of what is a "person."

I fully realize that the state and federal courts rule on controversial cases. In fact, they often purposely choose controversial cases. With all due respect, you're preaching to the choir.

[newtoasu]

While this is not about guns, it is about two things we have been discussing in this thread: 1) Constitutional Rights and 2) the ACLU.

The first paragraph of the linked article from Wired Magazine is pretty descriptive:

“The Department of Homeland Security’s civil rights watchdog has concluded that travelers along the nation’s borders may have their electronics seized and the contents of those devices examined for any reason whatsoever — all in the name of national security.”

That means that law enforcement agents from Homeland Security can demand and search any electronic device (laptop or cell phone) that you have without any reason whatsoever (no probable cause) and without any warrant, despite what the 4th amendment says:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

As pointed out in the article, the area for seizure of electronics for any reason extends 100 miles from the actual border. Which means that obviously El Paso and San Diego meet that requirement, but also Detroit, Buffalo, Rochester and even the suburbs of Seattle meet that requirement.In addition, since the borders also include the shoreline, technically anyone within 100 miles of the coast is also in the "electronic search zone."

The ACLU is readying a challenge to this policy.

I’ll be curious to see if this actual, in effect, policy of the the Department of Homeland Security has the same alarm and concern raised that merely discussing the 2nd amendment has raised.

Here is the link to the Wired article:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/0 ... -seizures/

[appst89]

That's ridiculous, along with the NDAA, the PATRIOT Act, the recent DOJ white paper and so many other things our so-called government is doing to our rights. I've written my representatives, but all I got back was a form letter. They know most of America doesn't care, so they can pretty much do what they want.

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

That's ridiculous, along with the NDAA, the PATRIOT Act, the recent DOJ white paper and so many other things our so-called government is doing to our rights. I've written my representatives, but all I got back was a form letter. They know most of America doesn't care, so they can pretty much do what they want.

To tie this back into the 2nd Amendment, and I tried stating this earlier in this thread, maybe not very well, but I only have so much time to do so much. My problem with all the effort on the 2nd A is that citizens are killing citizens at such an alarming rate, the gov't need not really do anything IF that was the goal of the gov't. Then add is the point that the gov't has SOOO much more fire-power there is really no way to check that power, except through the goodwill of the military and para-military forces. We need to make sure the Bradley Mannings of the military are held up as role models, not locked away for years. I am not worried about a coup from the military, I am worried about a citizen taking out dozens at a time. So on to the 1st Amendment for me. That is where the gov't is coming after us in small ways that add up. If every active person in the NRA would direct 1/2 their energy to stopping the attacks on the 1st Amendment (and others such as the 4th) that would be a force to reckon with. Having a right to have a gun is not the end all right in my book. In modern society there are more important things to worry about, especially when no one (well most no one, I am sure you can find some person on the edge.) is asking to take away every gun in existence in this country. I know I am not asking that.

[AppGrad1]

That's ridiculous, along with the NDAA, the PATRIOT Act, the recent DOJ white paper and so many other things our so-called government is doing to our rights. I've written my representatives, but all I got back was a form letter. They know most of America doesn't care, so they can pretty much do what they want.

To tie this back into the 2nd Amendment, and I tried stating this earlier in this thread, maybe not very well, but I only have so much time to do so much. My problem with all the effort on the 2nd A is that citizens are killing citizens at such an alarming rate, the gov't need not really do anything IF that was the goal of the gov't. Then add is the point that the gov't has SOOO much more fire-power there is really no way to check that power, except through the goodwill of the military and para-military forces. We need to make sure the Bradley Mannings of the military are held up as role models, not locked away for years. I am not worried about a coup from the military, I am worried about a citizen taking out dozens at a time. So on to the 1st Amendment for me. That is where the gov't is coming after us in small ways that add up. If every active person in the NRA would direct 1/2 their energy to stopping the attacks on the 1st Amendment (and others such as the 4th) that would be a force to reckon with. Having a right to have a gun is not the end all right in my book. In modern society there are more important things to worry about, especially when no one (well most no one, I am sure you can find some person on the edge.) is asking to take away every gun in existence in this country. I know I am not asking that.

I agree. You or somebody has stated before about why doesn't the NRA or 2nd A activists step up about "all" the Amendments. That is ideally great but there is no way the NRA has the funds to fight other Amendment issues. It's just not possible. Other agency's need to get involved. I know the ACLU is one that can and does. It's just no fair to make the NRA supporters seem like some "uneducated gun toten rednecks" that only care about the 2nd Amendment. It is very naive to think mass killings will stop by letting the gov take away AR's. There are millions out there and it will not stop. Rifles only come to about 4% of killings in the US.
I think it is painfully obvious about what the government is doing to take away our rights as citizens. We are now seeing some of these in the media.
1. The illegal search going on around the border issue.
2. Look at the LAPD mess. I'm not even saying I know about what has happened in this guy's past but his manifesto sure sounds like it has some merit to it. Doesn't give a pass to start killing people but in this guy's eyes he's been wronged by the police.

This is why I strongly agree with the government taking NO gun rights. It is just a way for the government to make every citizen register their gun so that one day they could come to your house and retrieve every gun. I am getting to where I do not trust the government at all. I didn't think it possible but we may be needing our guns to protect ourselves in my lifetime not the next generations lifetime like I originally thought.

PS... The government knows it will never take away every gun in American hands but it can whittle away at things like AR'15, Ak-47's etc and it knows the people can never defend themselves with just pistols and bolt action rifles. The Vice Pres said himself on camera that he knows taking these weapons away WILL NOT stop mass shootings...

[JCline0429]

Too bad the internet wasn't around in the time that F Roosevelt placed thousands of Japanese in internment camps. Think taking away guns, eavesdropping on telephone calls, and prohibiting Nazi demonstations are infringing rights..........

[AppGrad1]

Too bad the internet wasn't around in the time that F Roosevelt placed thousands of Japanese in internment camps. Think taking away guns, eavesdropping on telephone calls, and prohibiting Nazi demonstations are infringing rights..........

The NRA will get right on that!

[JCline0429]

Too bad the internet wasn't around in the time that F Roosevelt placed thousands of Japanese in internment camps. Think taking away guns, eavesdropping on telephone calls, and prohibiting Nazi demonstations are infringing rights..........

The NRA will get right on that!

Oh, did they have AK-47's

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

That's ridiculous, along with the NDAA, the PATRIOT Act, the recent DOJ white paper and so many other things our so-called government is doing to our rights. I've written my representatives, but all I got back was a form letter. They know most of America doesn't care, so they can pretty much do what they want.

To tie this back into the 2nd Amendment, and I tried stating this earlier in this thread, maybe not very well, but I only have so much time to do so much. My problem with all the effort on the 2nd A is that citizens are killing citizens at such an alarming rate, the gov't need not really do anything IF that was the goal of the gov't. Then add is the point that the gov't has SOOO much more fire-power there is really no way to check that power, except through the goodwill of the military and para-military forces. We need to make sure the Bradley Mannings of the military are held up as role models, not locked away for years. I am not worried about a coup from the military, I am worried about a citizen taking out dozens at a time. So on to the 1st Amendment for me. That is where the gov't is coming after us in small ways that add up. If every active person in the NRA would direct 1/2 their energy to stopping the attacks on the 1st Amendment (and others such as the 4th) that would be a force to reckon with. Having a right to have a gun is not the end all right in my book. In modern society there are more important things to worry about, especially when no one (well most no one, I am sure you can find some person on the edge.) is asking to take away every gun in existence in this country. I know I am not asking that.

I agree. You or somebody has stated before about why doesn't the NRA or 2nd A activists step up about "all" the Amendments. That is ideally great but there is no way the NRA has the funds to fight other Amendment issues. It's just not possible. Other agency's need to get involved. I know the ACLU is one that can and does. It's just no fair to make the NRA supporters seem like some "uneducated gun toten rednecks" that only care about the 2nd Amendment. It is very naive to think mass killings will stop by letting the gov take away AR's. There are millions out there and it will not stop. Rifles only come to about 4% of killings in the US.
I think it is painfully obvious about what the government is doing to take away our rights as citizens. We are now seeing some of these in the media.
1. The illegal search going on around the border issue.
2. Look at the LAPD mess. I'm not even saying I know about what has happened in this guy's past but his manifesto sure sounds like it has some merit to it. Doesn't give a pass to start killing people but in this guy's eyes he's been wronged by the police.

This is why I strongly agree with the government taking NO gun rights. It is just a way for the government to make every citizen register their gun so that one day they could come to your house and retrieve every gun. I am getting to where I do not trust the government at all. I didn't think it possible but we may be needing our guns to protect ourselves in my lifetime not the next generations lifetime like I originally thought.

PS... The government knows it will never take away every gun in American hands but it can whittle away at things like AR'15, Ak-47's etc and it knows the people can never defend themselves with just pistols and bolt action rifles. The Vice Pres said himself on camera that he knows taking these weapons away WILL NOT stop mass shootings...

And I can respect an org having an issue and that being their issue. So I don't fault the NRA with having guns as their issue of importance. I think it fairly obvious that is not my issue, and I do think it a bit misguided to make guns the main issue, relative to other things the gov't at the fed level is trying to do. But I am starting to repeat myself, and that gets boring to read.

As far as Biden and his statement. I don't expect to have no mass shootings myself. I think it would make for a better society if we only had one of these events per year and not multiple, and as the years past, maybe something like this only happens once a decade. Other countries have a much less often occurrence and this is a case were less is better, and I am willing to accept that.

Finally on the LAPD. The very fact that they are offering $1 million now only shows how much, god I hate to use this word, support, the murderer has. In an ideal situation, it would not take much at all to get some leads as the PD would have the support of the general public. The fact a murderer has support is so telling of just how corrupt the LAPD either is, or at minimum is corrupt in the eye's of the community. It sounds like something out of a 2nd or 3rd world country.