• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NYC Mayor Conducts Gun-Sale Sting in Arizona

Call it what you will, but you still own a gun or more, right?

that is as stupid as saying its ok to make Judaism illegal in the USA but like the Jews under Ferdinand and Isabella they can always convert and attend a Mass
 
Glad that you seem to agree the law was being broken at that particular gun show in AZ.

Those videos have been made available to the public and I would hope the proper authorities will follow up on this, now that someone has shed some light on what goes on there.

The thought, though remote in possibility, of hizzoner being Bubba's bottom boy in a federal penitentiary does give me the warm fuzzies
 
Not a very good comparison at all. Our laws on relgion are not prefaced with being well regulated. Same with cars. Or meat. Or any number of products that we are allowed to regulate for a varity of reasons. Apples anmd tee frog comparisons don't help either. Sorry.

You must have flunked Con Law 101--the right is not well regulated. FOr you to claim something that moronic you would have to argue that the second amendment empowers the federal government to act or that at least part of the bill of rights delegates power to congress. that is beyond pathetic
 
No I didn't and its not as if I care, didn't you have anything to add about the video, you know the part about the two fellas openly discussing how neither one of them are able to pass a background check just before they engage in the sale/purchase of a deadly weapon(inside a gun show)?

Also, sorry if you have an oxy problem, I am not sure illegal gun sales are going to help you with those demons.

wow I sure hope your accuracy with a gun is better than your interpretation of what I was saying
 
You must have flunked Con Law 101--the right is not well regulated. FOr you to claim something that moronic you would have to argue that the second amendment empowers the federal government to act or that at least part of the bill of rights delegates power to congress. that is beyond pathetic

The amendment starts out with the words well regulated, and the courts have repeatedly ruled regulating is allowed, so you may not be as knowledgable as you think you are. And you notice the courts have not struck down the alrge majority of regulations law makers have put in place.
 
that is as stupid as saying its ok to make Judaism illegal in the USA but like the Jews under Ferdinand and Isabella they can always convert and attend a Mass

Another apple to tree frog comparison. Sorry. It doesn't wash.
 
The amendment starts out with the words well regulated, and the courts have repeatedly ruled regulating is allowed, so you may not be as knowledgable as you think you are. And you notice the courts have not struck down the alrge majority of regulations law makers have put in place.

Let me help you out..........

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Since the 2nd Amendment hasn't been struck down, I'd say that it means what it says.
 
The amendment starts out with the words well regulated, and the courts have repeatedly ruled regulating is allowed, so you may not be as knowledgable as you think you are. And you notice the courts have not struck down the alrge majority of regulations law makers have put in place.



how you can be so arrogant and so wrong, is truly astonishing. :shock:


Choo Choo! it's the ignorance train, next stop "well Regulated". Just what do you think "well regulated" means. Normally, I'd wait for an answer, but again when facts are presented, you ingore said reality and substitute your own. :lamo


"Well Regulated

The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order.

[obsolete sense]
b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.
We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.
Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.

This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:

Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.
In the passage that follows, do you think the U.S. government was concerned because the Creek Indians' tribal regulations were superior to those of the Wabash or was it because they represented a better trained and disciplined fighting force?
That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence. That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body of well regulated troops always ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions.
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.
I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got.
--- George Washington (The Writings of George Washington, pp. 503-4, (G.P. Putnam & Sons, pub.)(1889))
The above quote is clearly not a request for a militia with the best set of regulations. (For brevity the entire passage is not shown and this quote should not be construed to imply Washington favored militias, in fact he thought little of them, as the full passage indicates.)
But Dr Sir I am Afraid it would blunt the keen edge they have at present which might be keept sharp for the Shawnese &c: I am convinced it would be Attended by considerable desertions. And perhaps raise a Spirit of Discontent not easily Queld amongst the best regulated troops, but much more so amongst men unused to the Yoak of Military Discipline.
--- Letter from Colonel William Fleming to Col. Adam Stephen, Oct 8, 1774, pp. 237-8. (Documentary History of Dunmore's War, 1774, Wisconsin historical society, pub. (1905))
And finally, a late-17th century comparison between the behavior of a large collection of seahorses and well-regulated soldiers:
One of the Seamen that had formerly made a Greenland Voyage for Whale-Fishing, told us that in that country he had seen very great Troops of those Sea-Horses ranging upon Land, sometimes three or four hundred in a Troop: Their great desire, he says, is to roost themselves on Land in the Warm Sun; and Whilst they sleep, they apppoint one to stand Centinel, and watch a certain time; and when that time's expir'd, another takes his place of Watching, and the first Centinel goes to sleep, &c. observing the strict Discipline, as a Body of Well-regulated Troops
--- (Letters written from New-England, A. D. 1686. P. 47, John Dutton (1867))
The quoted passages support the idea that a well-regulated militia was synonymous with one that was thoroughly trained and disciplined, and as a result, well-functioning. That description fits most closely with the "to put in good order" definition supplied by the Random House dictionary. The Oxford dictionary's definition also appears to fit if one considers discipline in a military context to include or imply well-trained.


What about the Amendment's text itself? Considering the adjective "well" and the context of the militia clause, which is more likely to ensure the security of a free state, a militia governed by numerous laws (or the proper amount of regulation [depending on the meaning of "well"] ) or a well-disciplined and trained militia? This brief textual analysis also suggests "to put in good order" is the correct interpretation of well regulated, signifying a well disciplined, trained, and functioning militia.

And finally, when regulated is used as an adjective, its meaning varies depending on the noun its modifying and of course the context. For example: well regulated liberty (properly controlled), regulated rifle (adjusted for accuracy), and regulated commerce (governed by regulations) all express a different meaning for regulated. This is by no means unusual, just as the word, bear, conveys a different meaning depending on the word it modifies: bearing arms, bearing fruit, or bearing gifts. "


Meaning of the words in the Second Amendment


Well Regulated means "IN GOOD WORKING ORDER" it does not mean laws regulating such.


Now carry on with more obfuscation. :pimpdaddy:
 
rev, you post nothing new and not seen by myself or nearly anyone to even discuss this subject. But, silliness aside, do we not regulate, as in have regulations that limit, and have not these regulations been upheld? Not a hard question, and not something requiring you to go silly. Just try to answer it honestly.

:coffeepap
 
rev, you post nothing new and not seen by myself or nearly anyone to even discuss this subject. But, silliness aside, do we not regulate, as in have regulations that limit, and have not these regulations been upheld? Not a hard question, and not something requiring you to go silly. Just try to answer it honestly.

:coffeepap



Well if you are going to be arrogantly and ignorantly dishonest in the definition of "well regulated", you shouldn't whine when your called to stand on your misinformation. :shrug:
 
Well if you are going to be arrogantly and ignorantly dishonest in the definition of "well regulated", you shouldn't whine when your called to stand on your misinformation. :shrug:

Oh, I can and have cited some who read it as meaning it can be regulated. But that has nothing to do with my point. That would be you trying to obfuscate. The point was we have regulations, this reasoning has been used, and the courts have upheld the right to regulate. Do you agree with that or not, or are you going to obfuscate?

:coffeepap
 
Oh, I can and have cited some who read it as meaning it can be regulated. But that has nothing to do with my point. That would be you trying to obfuscate. The point was we have regulations, this reasoning has been used, and the courts have upheld the right to regulate. Do you agree with that or not, or are you going to obfuscate?

:coffeepap




I trailed off your nonsensical point when you tried to make an excuse for your arrogant prevarication. "well regulated" doesn't mean what you tried to argue it meant, there is no obfucation, Just not interested in having snobby arrogant prevarications direct this conversation, clean up your mess, then, we can continue. :pimpdaddy:
 
I trailed off your nonsensical point when you tried to make an excuse for your arrogant prevarication. "well regulated" doesn't mean what you tried to argue it meant, there is no obfucation, Just not interested in having snobby arrogant prevarications direct this conversation, clean up your mess, then, we can continue. :pimpdaddy:

Again, you obfuscate. The point was that they are regulated and the courts have allowed that. That people disagree on what well regulated means is irrelevent. When you skip the point, it is you who obfuscates. Sorry.

:coffeepap
 
Again, you obfuscate. The point was that they are regulated and the courts have allowed that. That people disagree on what well regulated means is irrelevent. When you skip the point, it is you who obfuscates. Sorry.

:coffeepap




You:


The amendment starts out with the words well regulated, and the courts have repeatedly ruled regulating is allowed, so you may not be as knowledgable as you think you are. And you notice the courts have not struck down the alrge majority of regulations law makers have put in place.




You:


The amendment starts out with the words well regulated, and the courts have repeatedly ruled regulating is allowed, so you may not be as knowledgable as you think you are. And you notice the courts have not struck down the alrge majority of regulations law makers have put in place.




"well Regulated" isn't what you stated, you can come up with a dumb "they say" retort, but it's wrong. Your continued arrogance and willful ignorance is on full display, like a peackock in full plumage!



That people disagree on what well regulated means is irrelevent.


Only you disagree, because well, you are being dishonest. Feel free to provide evidence other than a snotty "cause I posted it" type of response, I mean really boo, if you are going to act this way, you should at least, not lie, and proffer up a little evidence.....


My car is here, we are off to the game, I am sorry you chose to stick to your guns with this dishonest argument, but that call is yours. It's transparent to all but one. You have a nice day,
 
Why is New York wrong? Guns purchased in States with lax laws end up in the hands of people who shouldn't have them in NY and are used in crimes against NY citizens. Seems rational to try and put a stop to it.
 
Why is New York wrong? Guns purchased in States with lax laws end up in the hands of people who shouldn't have them in NY and are used in crimes against NY citizens. Seems rational to try and put a stop to it.

Because its non of New York's damn business what constitutional rights someone chooses to exercise,especially a right that says shall not infringe at the end of it.New York has no business pissing on the 2nd amendment and its definitely none of New York's damn business what someone does in another state.
 
Last edited:
The amendment starts out with the words well regulated, and the courts have repeatedly ruled regulating is allowed, so you may not be as knowledgable as you think you are. And you notice the courts have not struck down the alrge majority of regulations law makers have put in place.

The amendment starts out with A well regulated Militia. Not a well regulated people's right to keep and bear arms.The militia is the only part that can be well regulated., not the peoples right to keep and bear arms. These are separate rights. Just like religion,free speech,freedom of assembly, are all separate rights in the first amendment. What you are doing amounts to someone saying the 1st amendment says "peaceful", you speech can have anything violent in it.
 
Last edited:
I wished some of our more fervent right wingers around here would get this upset when O'Keefe releases doctored and edited videos that don't tell the truth as J-Mac is here about something that as far as I can tell, hasn't been falsely edited, didn't break any laws, etc.

I wish some of our fervent "attack right wingers" around here would be a bit honest in their comparison of a private citizen performing entrapment situations on his own volition or by the spurring of another private citizen and when a sitting mayor does something similar completely and utterly out of his jurisdiction to make it into a political issue.

I find it interesting that you use the post to bash "right wingers" for not going after O'Keefe, but then completely shrug off this action.
 
Why is New York wrong? Guns purchased in States with lax laws end up in the hands of people who shouldn't have them in NY and are used in crimes against NY citizens. Seems rational to try and put a stop to it.


There are several things wrong with what Bloomberg did here, not the least of which was to send NYC law enforcement into another state's jurisdiction without coordination, or even infoming them that they were there. Then there is the state and federal gun laws that now already exist that these idiots broke. Then, there is the fact that Bloomberg is a damned mayor, not the exhaulted supreme ruler of every place in America. His foray into this head long was a massive blunder, and highlights liberals arrogance in what they believe is proper use of authority, and power.


j-mac
 
There are several things wrong with what Bloomberg did here, not the least of which was to send NYC law enforcement into another state's jurisdiction without coordination, or even infoming them that they were there. Then there is the state and federal gun laws that now already exist that these idiots broke. Then, there is the fact that Bloomberg is a damned mayor, not the exhaulted supreme ruler of every place in America. His foray into this head long was a massive blunder, and highlights liberals arrogance in what they believe is proper use of authority, and power.


j-mac

So are you saying that the Mayor of a city doesn't have a right to investigate how guns are comming into the hands of criminals in their city?
 
So are you saying that the Mayor of a city doesn't have a right to investigate how guns are comming into the hands of criminals in their city?


Sure he can investigate all he wants in his own jurisdiction. The moment he steps out of that he is in the wrong.


j-mac
 
Sure he can investigate all he wants in his own jurisdiction. The moment he steps out of that he is in the wrong.


j-mac

If the guns are comming from somewhere else you are suggesting they don't have a right much less a duty to establish where they are comming from? That makes no sense.
 
If the guns are comming from somewhere else you are suggesting they don't have a right much less a duty to establish where they are comming from? That makes no sense.
The FBI knows where they are coming from. the single largest source are gun owners within New York State. Pretty pathetic when the mayor of NYC feels like he needs to travel to Arizona to make a pathetic point when all he has to to is travel to Albany.
 
Back
Top Bottom