d-usa wrote:
They have a 4th option, and it is the one not mentioned and is the one they didn't exercise.

Instead of sending letters to 500 people who have spend the last three years breaking the law and giving them the opportunity to finally get them either in compliance or out of the city they could have actually executed warrants on these 500 people and confiscated their illegal weapons and destroyed them. And even that wouldn't have been "gun grabbing" since these people are willfully ignoring the law.

The fact that they are giving them the chance to get rid of their crime after three years of breaking the law is what makes your opinion that this is gun grabbing laughable.

I'm sorry. I thought you were going to illuminate how what I stated was an incorrect fact.

I guess we will go ahead and have a discussion then.

You consider what these citizen's have done to be unlawful. I feel what the government of NYC did/is doing to be unconstitutional.

BTW you did not answer my question at the end of my last post. What is the accent that you have?

The law is "no rifle or shotgun with a capacity greater than 5".

The 500 people broke the law by having rifles and/or shotguns with a capacity greater than 5.

The NYPD, who would have been legally justified to take and destroy these weapons, is giving them the chance to move them, sell them, or make them compliant.

You consider that gun grabbing, which is a stupid statement.

We already established many threads ago that you don't care about laws you don't like and don't think you should have to follow laws you don't agree with. These 500 people did just that, and they still are not having their guns taken away.

Whatever weird opinion you might justify in your head doesn't change that this is not a gun grabbing operation. Unless you consider it gun grabbing every time they take a gun from a gang banger.

I wish I could exalt that more than once d

 d-usa wrote:


You consider that gun grabbing, which is a stupid statement. OPINION

Again not exactly addressing the whole, "you don't know the difference between a fact and opinion" FACT

Your first 16 years spent in Germany PROBABLY did not equip you adequately for living in America as an American. OPINION

You consider NYC to be well within the law. OPINION

I consider NYC to have violated the Constitution. OPINION



I'll leave you with a few quotes.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. -- 16 Am. Jur. Sec. 177 late 2d, Sec 256

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it." -- Abraham Lincoln, 4 April 1861

It has given me a better understanding of how the law works than you, and also a bigger respect for the constitution than you. FACT

If you don't like a law, you don't get to ignore it without facing the punishment. FACT

If you don't like the law the you comply and fight it in court. FACT

Removing illegal weapons from the city is not gun grabbing. FACT

It is a sad existence to live in fear and paranoia when you are delusional about what is happening around you. OPINION


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also: you don't even agree with Lincoln's quote that you posted

 d-usa wrote:

If you don't like a law, you don't get to ignore it without facing the punishment. FACT

So how come Obama gets away with changing the PPACA all the time?

whembly waves at d-usa and slinks away....

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

If you don't like a law, you don't get to ignore it without facing the punishment. FACT

So how come Obama gets away with changing the PPACA all the time?

whembly waves at d-usa and slinks away....

And he is facing the punishment at the polls

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

If you don't like a law, you don't get to ignore it without facing the punishment. FACT

So how come Obama gets away with changing the PPACA all the time?

whembly waves at d-usa and slinks away....

And he is facing the punishment at the polls

O.o

Good point.

Carry on then!

 d-usa wrote:
The law is "no rifle or shotgun with a capacity greater than 5".

The 500 people broke the law by having rifles and/or shotguns with a capacity greater than 5.

The NYPD, who would have been legally justified to take and destroy these weapons, is giving them the chance to move them, sell them, or make them compliant.

You consider that gun grabbing, which is a stupid statement.

We already established many threads ago that you don't care about laws you don't like and don't think you should have to follow laws you don't agree with. These 500 people did just that, and they still are not having their guns taken away.

Whatever weird opinion you might justify in your head doesn't change that this is not a gun grabbing operation. Unless you consider it gun grabbing every time they take a gun from a gang banger.

Having said all that, an alternative way to look at is:

Folks legally own guns, in this case rifles and shotguns with a >5 capacity. Gov't at some level decides to outlaw those legally owned guns and gives themselves the authority to confiscate the guns and or jail/fine those with them (folks who don't get rid of them on their own and were turned into outlaws by the introduction of the newly restrictive laws).

Because these good law abiding citizens had registered their at the time legally owned weapons, the gov't is indeed using that information to ensure those weapons are removed from the jurisdiction, frankly by threat of force (fines or jail time).

You may not call that 'gun grabbing'. I submit the effect of the action is the same, the gov't is using gun registration information in order to force people to give up firearms.

Your example of confiscating weapons from 'gang bangers' is not an appropriate analogy. "Gang Banger' implies criminal, who through their actions (assuming convicts) have given up their right to own weapons, or if not, and not using the weapons illegally, are also not having them confiscated.

In this case, the weapons when registered WERE legal. The gov't then passed what many consider unreasonably restrictive new laws making these legally owned weapons illegal. The only act which is illegal in this case is holding onto personally owned property newly made illegal.

What weapons will NY make illegal next? Whichever, they will use gun registration info to force removal of the newly illegal guns.

 d-usa wrote:


And he is facing the punishment at the polls

Not that polls matter in the slightest when you are in your last term of office.

I guess the one good thing is he can never hold office again and continue to screw things up.

And they had three years to comply with the laws, laws which they chose to ignore. They don't get to ignore it without facing the punishment.

I'm not saying the law is a good law. I think I have spoken out quite a few times about how I think that magazine limits and laws like that are stupid because it doesn't really stop anybody from doing anything. How many magazines did the guy carry in Virginia Tech? How long does it take anybody that is even semi-proficient to change out a magazine?

But if you don't like the law you have a few options, and the NYPD is even giving you one of them:

1) store the gun where it is legal. I find it hard to believe that nobody there has a family member outside of city limits that can store the gun for you. NYC is kind enough not to prosecute you for violating the law since 2010. NYC didn't take your guns.

1.5) While you are complying with the law, and still own your weapons in the process because the government did not take it from you and also didn't prosecute you for violating the law for the last 3 years, you sue the city and wrangle your case to the SCOTUS. My understanding is that this is already happening.

2) You make your weapon complaint, you get to keep it, government didn't take it from you and NYC also didn't prosecute you for violating the law for the last 3 years.

3) You sell it, government didn't take it from you and also didn't prosecute you for violating the law for the last 3 years.

4) You ignore the law and take your punishment. After that happens public opinion and/or lawsuits will determine what happens to the laws in NYC.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jamesk1973 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


And he is facing the punishment at the polls

Not that polls matter in the slightest when you are in your last term of office.

Just shows how little you know about politics and the power of the office...

I guess the one good thing is he can never hold office again and continue to screw things up.

He can hold lots of offices. He can return to Congress, serve in the executive branch as a Secretary of Whatever, go into state politics...there are still lots of ways for him to hold office again and to continue to screw things up.

But keep on trying, some day you will get a fact right.

We're just going in circles now.

d-usa, in my opinion you are wrong and NYC is wrong.

jamesk1973 wrote:
We're just going in circles now.

d-usa, in my opinion you are wrong and NYC is wrong.

You also think Lincoln is wrong yet you post his quotes, so go figure.

Fact is that just because you think something is wrong doesn't mean you get to ignore the law without facing the consequences.

 d-usa wrote:


He can hold lots of offices. He can return to Congress, serve in the executive branch as a Secretary of Whatever, go into state politics...there are still lots of ways for him to hold office again and to continue to screw things up.

In my opinion, the probability of him returning to office is as likely to occur as your assertion that registration does not lead to confiscation.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:
We're just going in circles now.

d-usa, in my opinion you are wrong and NYC is wrong.

You also think Lincoln is wrong yet you post his quotes, so go figure.

Fact is that just because you think something is wrong doesn't mean you get to ignore the law without facing the consequences.

Not sure where you got that I think Lincoln is wrong.

Edited by Manchu

jamesk1973 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


He can hold lots of offices. He can return to Congress, serve in the executive branch as a Secretary of Whatever, go into state politics...there are still lots of ways for him to hold office again and to continue to screw things up.

In my opinion, the probability of him returning to office is as likely to occur as your assertion that registration does not lead to confiscation.

Nice attempt at recovery, but your statement of "I guess the one good thing is he can never hold office again" was just one more wrong fact posted by you.

The statement based on opinion would have been: "I guess the one good thing is that he is not likely to ever hold office again", which would have given you the ability to use the "opinion" excuse.

But keep on trying, you'll get it one of these days.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jamesk1973 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

You also think Lincoln is wrong yet you post his quotes, so go figure.

Fact is that just because you think something is wrong doesn't mean you get to ignore the law without facing the consequences.

Not sure where you got that I think Lincoln is wrong.

Well you posted this:

jamesk1973 wrote:

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it." -- Abraham Lincoln, 4 April 1861

Yet you also say that people can't use their constitutional right of amending it if it results in something that you don't agree with and you will just ignore it if they do.

Edited to reflect Manchu's edit above. .

Classy.

Perhaps if they are unhappy with their current NYC, they should go make their own NYC. With blackjack and hookers.

 daedalus wrote:
Perhaps if they are unhappy with their current NYC, they should go make their own NYC. With blackjack and hookers.

So New New York?

I would also accept "Newest York".

Runner up is "The city formerly known as New New Amsterdam."

Can't we just name it

[weird symbol] formerly known as New York formerly known as New Amsterdam formerly known as "things were better before the white man came"?

 Ouze wrote:
Again, if you read the law on the NYPD licensing section it's pretty unambiguous that it applies, as the law says, to ammunition feeding devices - a magazine capacity restriction.

Is an internal magazine not an ammunition feeding device?

Shouldnt we go back on topic or at least start a new thread on NYC's illegal gun confiscation?

You don't read much before you post, do you...

 d-usa wrote:
You don't read much before you post, do you...

Really starting to get a feel for what the d stands for...

Why do I feel happy I am not part of any of this conversation?

It stands for that fancy country you want me to go back to.

Sucks for you that I'm a citizen of this great country, so I'm "home" already. But "go back to where you came from" is always the sign that somebody lost any credibility.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
Why do I feel happy I am not part of any of this conversation?

If you were we would has somebody else that knows what they are talking about to balance out two other folks. CptJake is probably tired of being the only other rational voice on the "don't agree with d-usa" side.

I know I wouldn't mind some better debate opponents!

 d-usa wrote:

I know I wouldn't mind some better debate opponents!

It's not really my fault you cannot frame a coherent argument.

I even labeled the opinions and facts for you because you were having trouble telling the difference.

And since you like emboldening and coloring quotes. Here you go...

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it." -- Abraham Lincoln, 4 April 1861

Highlighting a different portion doesn't make his statement change. He still says that people can change the thing however they want, something you don't agree with.

So you are still posting a quote that, according to your own multipage argument in another thread, encourages something that you disagree with.

Just because you didn't highlight that part doesn't mean that Lincoln didn't say it.

Quit quoting the guy you disagree with to try to make some sort of point. You're not very good at this.

Go back to insulting me and telling me to move back to Germany, you were better at that.

 d-usa wrote:
Highlighting a different portion doesn't make his statement change. He still says that people can change the thing however they want, something you don't agree with.

So you are still posting a quote that, according to your own multipage argument in another thread, encourages something that you disagree with.

Just because you didn't highlight that part doesn't mean that Lincoln didn't say it.

Quit quoting the guy you disagree with to try to make some sort of point. You're not very good at this.

Go back to insulting me and telling me to move back to Germany, you were better at that.

I know you struggle to understand when grownups talk.

However, ad hominem attacks are not helping you.

Lincoln said that one way or the other the Constitution can be changed/amended.

You seized upon that part the way a drowning man would grab a flotation device.

Do you think I am unaware that the constitution can be amended?

No. What really bothers you is that I said I would not obey if the 2nd amended was revoked.

It's simple if the 2nd is revoked the common citizen's ability to rebel is diminished. That is how I see it.

You may not see it that way. You might live in a warm and fuzzy world where as long as you are safe, you are willing to obey any law and accept any infringement of your liberty.

That is fine for you.

I am not willing to do that. I know that has gotten you all worked up.

I shall not bow.

So you disagree with Lincoln that the majority can change it.

It's a lot less complicated than you think it is.

And really, you are complaining about ad hominem attacks and pretending that you are the grown up talking?

Isn't there a mod edited post of hours from earlier today because your grown up non-attacking self told me to feth off and to go back to Germany?

I know that there are a lot of folks who disagree with me on this topic, but what is more telling is that as much as they like to debate me on stuff like that...none of them are choosing to defend you.

That is pretty obvious to most everybody on here I would imagine. And it says more than you ever could.

 d-usa wrote:
So you disagree with Lincoln that the majority can change it.

Nope. Totally agree. The majority can change it.

 d-usa wrote:
And really, you are complaining about ad hominem attacks and pretending that you are the grown up talking?

Who is complaining?

Isn't there a mod edited post of hours from earlier today because your grown up non-attacking self told me to feth off and to go back to Germany?

There sure is.

I know that there are a lot of folks who disagree with me on this topic, but what is more telling is that as much as they like to debate me on stuff like that...none of them are choosing to defend you.

No. I imagine they aren't

That is pretty obvious to most everybody on here I would imagine. And it says more than you ever could.

Crystal clear, I imagine.

Sorry mate, but you being from Texas is actually making Frazz look bad here... and he can look bad from time to time (but at least we know the "serious" is generally turned off when talk of the Great Wiener Dog Empire springs up)

I personally am a staunch 2nd Amendment supporter, and can generally unravel incoherent arguments coming from any side of an argument... but seriously, I don't know what the feth you are going on about here.

d-usa and I definitely do not agree on many things, and probably for different reasons. However, I can see EXACTLY where he is arguing from. You seem to be arguing from somewhere outside of left field at Reliant Stadium.

jamesk1973 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
You don't read much before you post, do you...

Really starting to get a feel for what the d stands for...

The d is a distraction. At the end of the day, everyone here are USAholes.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Sorry mate, but you being from Texas is actually making Frazz look bad here... and he can look bad from time to time (but at least we know the "serious" is generally turned off when talk of the Great Wiener Dog Empire springs up)

I personally am a staunch 2nd Amendment supporter, and can generally unravel incoherent arguments coming from any side of an argument... but seriously, I don't know what the feth you are going on about here.

d-usa and I definitely do not agree on many things, and probably for different reasons. However, I can see EXACTLY where he is arguing from. You seem to be arguing from somewhere outside of left field at Reliant Stadium.

At this point I think we are continuing on out of spite.

You might have spite, I'm just enjoying the ride and watching that hole get deeper.

 d-usa wrote:
You might have spite, I'm just enjoying the ride and watching that hole get deeper.

Yeah, I bet.

BTW. I still have my guns. No, you cannot have them.

I told you already, I got my own.

If you put that in your signature you wouldn't have to repeat yourself so often though.

I wish you two would just feth and get it over with.

Your tears rejuvenate me.

 daedalus wrote:
I wish you two would just feth and get it over with.

Um... how 'bout no please.

Relapse wrote:
Why do I feel happy I am not part of any of this conversation?

Was thinking the same as I read the last two pages.

I personally think the 5 round ban is ridiculous.

A pump action shotgun is a completely reasonable home defense weapon (and endorsed by smokin Joe Biden no less!)

The mossberg 500 is a great, cheap option. It's typically a 5+1 and under this law is illegal in NYC.

So sorry smokin Joe! Gotta get a handgun.

This thread seems to have outlived its useful life and should be humanely put down.