• 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

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

He should have been indicted by the prosecutors of those states for conspiring to violate federal and state gun laws.
 
Funny I thought it highlighted the sorry state of gun control in this country, especially at "Gun Shows". That couldn't be the REAL reason you object, could it? Surely you don't approve of the behavior of those gun sellers so why would you object to any means that may correct the problem? Stings are the brread and butter of law enforcement nationwide, would you want them outlawed?


I guess you couldn't figure out that the mayor's butt boys were not acting in a legal law enforcement fashion and they should be bubba's wives in some prison now
 
I don't think there is anyone including responsible firearms owners including myself that would say that regulation on guns is all together a bad thing as a blanket statement like you are trying to portray here Joe. But, there is such a thing as 'over regulation' to the point of infringement also. So let's take a look at the actual sentence in question shall we? And remember punctuation matters.

That is not what I'm trying to say. I merely want accpetance of the premise that regulation is allowed. Once that is accepted, the argument is then where is the line. I don't care to ban all guns. Nor do I believe that will ever, ever happen, and thus think the hand wringing is kind of silly, and a tad dishonest. But just a tad.

So, stop with they will take all or guns, and go with this regulation makes sense, but this one is too far. It changes the tenor of the debate, and loses some of the scare tactics.

Does this make sense to you?

If you will notice the comma's in this sentence, notating a break in the thought for a purpose.

First part: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" Meaning that the founders saw the need for an actual standing army, regulated, and uniform as being necessary to remaining free.

Second part: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" Denoting also that the people had the right to own, and on occasion as needed bear their own firearms.

Lastly: "shall not be infringed."

Notice the wording here, it isn't vague at all. Shall not is pretty clear. So while I can agree that some regulation of gun ownership is absolutely necessary in today's society, such as in the case of felon's, registration, and so forth. I do not get your particular misunderstanding of such a clear, and easy amendment of our constitution.

j-mac

Yes, the first part sets up the context, the standing army. So factually, self protect isn't the context. Nor is even hunting really. All of it set in the context of the need for a standing army, citizen milita. Does that aplly at all today?

This also sets up a bit of a problem for the courts, as some might read it in that context as we can have tanks and rocket launchers, or surface to air missles. Admittedly, only the extremely radical tend to go this far. but the courts have to consider context and intent and how that works today. hence, they can be regulated, but no nukes. ;)
 
It was absolutely a stunt by Bloomberg, and a dishonest one to boot. And I can't speak for the AZ AG, or Gov. but if I were them, I'd file suit against the city of NY, and Bloomberg for what ever they can throw at them, and cost them a bundle, then I would call Dumb ass Bloomberg, and tell him if he EVER tries to pull this again, and they are caught, that his henchmen will be arrested on the spot and charged to the fullest extent of the law.


j-mac

See we can agree. I have no problem with the AZ ag bitch slapping him, as long as they were not in the loop. No problem.
 
That is not what I'm trying to say. I merely want accpetance of the premise that regulation is allowed. Once that is accepted, the argument is then where is the line.


The line in my mind is where ever the citizens of the particular communities want for, and this is important, THEIR OWN communities. For instance, if NYC, or Chicago want's to ban the ownership of guns within their cities, then they may have a problem with federal suits, but they can try and do so. What they can NOT be allowed to do, is go into other cities, and communities and try and tell them what to do regarding their own laws, and practices.

I don't care to ban all guns.

What guns are acceptable to you for me to own? And why should that be up to you?

Nor do I believe that will ever, ever happen, and thus think the hand wringing is kind of silly, and a tad dishonest. But just a tad.

Oh, I don't think it is silly, or dishonest. See, we know that agendas that are rarely accepted well by the populace when imposed in large sweeping chunks, incrementalism has been the practice to slowly chip away at original intent for 100 years plus.

So, stop with they will take all or guns, and go with this regulation makes sense, but this one is too far. It changes the tenor of the debate, and loses some of the scare tactics.

Does this make sense to you?

I see what you are saying, but there is very little trust left now to believe that the intent is what the outcome in the future would show.

Yes, the first part sets up the context, the standing army. So factually, self protect isn't the context. Nor is even hunting really. All of it set in the context of the need for a standing army, citizen milita. Does that aplly at all today?

Yes, yes it does, and I think you have the context wrong here. The first part seperated by a comma, does indeed talk of a standing army, however after that it talks of every citizen of this country individually. And as long as 'We the People' retain the right to determine, and overthrow an tyrannical government if, and when they get too far out of control, then the amendment MUST be read as such. Otherwise, you stray from the right to gun ownership, to exactly what is feared.

This also sets up a bit of a problem for the courts, as some might read it in that context as we can have tanks and rocket launchers, or surface to air missles. Admittedly, only the extremely radical tend to go this far. but the courts have to consider context and intent and how that works today. hence, they can be regulated, but no nukes.

Really?, I want to see the politican that runs a campaign on the "own a tank, or surface to air missle" platform....heh, heh...

But, see, this is where I think in this creeping incrementalism thing, that we have strayed. Show me in Article 3 where the court is to "interpret" the Constitution?

Also, please document any "extreme radical" in this country that has been caught with a tank, or SAM, I would think that would be news. So, the "silliness" stems on both sides eh?


j-mac
 
I guess you couldn't figure out that the mayor's butt boys were not acting in a legal law enforcement fashion and they should be bubba's wives in some prison now
If I were the AG of Arizona I'd make them absolutely **** their pants. 1) Lawsuits against NYC, NYPD firearms division, and individually against all perpetrators. 2) File jurisdictional grievance 3) File state and federal charges for fraud, possession of false identification in a firearms transaction, and interstate transfer of illegally obtained weapons 4) File extradition orders on all perps.

I would see all suits and charges through personally. Then again I can be a very vengeful **** when I want to be personally.
 
It would not be in the amendment if it had not meaning (I do think it is poorly worded).


It does have meaning.Meaning that the militia itself is well regulated not the peoples right to keep and bear arms.

Now, it is true people disagree on the meaning. I accept that. But the fact remains, they are regulated, and the courts have upheld the idea of regulating.

The only people who disagree on the meaning are anti-2nd amendment loons seeking to squash second amendment rights.The fact is a well regulated militia and the peoples right to keep and bear arms are two separate rights.
 
If I were the AG of Arizona I'd make them absolutely **** their pants. 1) Lawsuits against NYC, NYPD firearms division, and individually against all perpetrators. 2) File jurisdictional grievance 3) File state and federal charges for fraud, possession of false identification in a firearms transaction, and interstate transfer of illegally obtained weapons 4) File extradition orders on all perps.

I would see all suits and charges through personally. Then again I can be a very vengeful **** when I want to be personally.

That's what should happen.That would make New York city's mayor stick to squashing 2nd amendment rights in his own city.
 
That's what should happen.That would make New York city's mayor stick to squashing 2nd amendment rights in his own city.

The mayor ought to be doing some time in Arizona or Ohio prisons
 
That's what should happen.That would make New York city's mayor stick to squashing 2nd amendment rights in his own city.
My ultimate goal would be to make the charges stick so he can be removed and thus can't **** anyone up anymore.
 
rev, that's only part of what I stated. Argument have to read in their entirity to be understood. When you slectively pick part of it, ignoring the context and the rest of it, it is you who are trying to obscure the argument. I'm sorry, but that is the way it is. I know people disagree concerning the words well regulated. But the point is, it doesn't matter, as the fact is they are regulated and the courts have upheld them being so. Now, you can continue to obfuscate, your word, or you can address the point. I've been around you long enough to have a fair idea what your choice will be, but the point is still that they are regulated, even if the interpretation of the words well regulated is wrong.

:coffeepap





:lol: you call that a concession? You tried to sell "well regulated" as basis for legal regulation of arms, the only thing you demonstrated was your collosal ignorance. You were wrong, get over it. :pimpdaddy:
 
If guns are making their way into NYC from these gun shows then maybe the mayor is doing the right thing.

In some instances the sellers are handing over guns to people who openly say they probably couldn't pass a background check which appears to be a violation of federal law.


Buyer says "That's good about the background check because I probably couldn't pass one", seller: "I don't care...because I wouldn't pass either, bud"

Gunshow Undercover - Arizona


Why pick on Arizona? Guns are making there way into New York from a lot of states.
 
That is not what I'm trying to say. I merely want accpetance of the premise that regulation is allowed.

Why do you want the army or national guard to be regulated ????
 
Is it a jusrisdiction thing for you, or that it involves guns? Just curious.

Learn to read. But we know what it is to you; it's about guns, and not jurisdiction.
 
Last edited:
It is both. Listen Joe, there are reasons that police as a professional courtesy inform other jurisdictions when they are present. Let me ask you, Do you think it is perfectly appropiate for another state's police to enter into say your state un announced to conduct a sting?

j-mac

Too bad the Arizona State Police didn't throw these clowns in the slammer.
 
Why pick on Arizona? Guns are making there way into New York from a lot of states.

Arizona has had some media attention lately. Lawsuit against government over fast and Furious, tough anti-illegal immigration laws,some sicko shooting up some people,government must conduct business in English only law and a ban on racist history classes that foster resentment towards other races of people and country.
 
Last edited:
Learn to read. But we know what it is to you; it's about guns, and not jurisdiction.

J said it was about jurisdiction. And he is who I was speaking to. Anything else?

:coffeepap
 
:lol: you call that a concession? You tried to sell "well regulated" as basis for legal regulation of arms, the only thing you demonstrated was your collosal ignorance. You were wrong, get over it. :pimpdaddy:

No, you tried to misdirect, obfuscate. You do that so you don't have to address the point. I understand.

:coffeepap
 
The line in my mind is where ever the citizens of the particular communities want for, and this is important, THEIR OWN communities. For instance, if NYC, or Chicago want's to ban the ownership of guns within their cities, then they may have a problem with federal suits, but they can try and do so. What they can NOT be allowed to do, is go into other cities, and communities and try and tell them what to do regarding their own laws, and practices.

As noted, I agree on the jurisdiction point.

What guns are acceptable to you for me to own? And why should that be up to you?

You did read what I wrote, didn't you. The line you posted this under is: I don't care to ban all guns.

However, if you ask, to open up another discussion, we can as a people decide that there are regulations and restrictions. I have no personal care on what they are. However, sawed off shot guns have been on the list in the past, and so have automatic weapons. I won't lose sleep over either. And I don't mind not seeing tanks, rocket launchers or nukes at my neighbors house eoither.


Oh, I don't think it is silly, or dishonest. See, we know that agendas that are rarely accepted well by the populace when imposed in large sweeping chunks, incrementalism has been the practice to slowly chip away at original intent for 100 years plus.

Really? Be more specific. What don't you have today that you did have?


I see what you are saying, but there is very little trust left now to believe that the intent is what the outcome in the future would show.

This would make sense if there was any substance behind it. You see too many of us are so fixed on our SIDE, our TEAM, that we do little but demonize and hype things beyond where they really are. That's one reason why I have ridden you on your reading material. Like so many today, on all sides, there is a tendency to us and them instead of seeking to actually address real issues. Taking our guns overall is not a real issue.

Yes, yes it does, and I think you have the context wrong here. The first part seperated by a comma, does indeed talk of a standing army, however after that it talks of every citizen of this country individually. And as long as 'We the People' retain the right to determine, and overthrow an tyrannical government if, and when they get too far out of control, then the amendment MUST be read as such. Otherwise, you stray from the right to gun ownership, to exactly what is feared.

Two things, the reason for it not being infringed is set up by the standing army part. That is the context. Peoplemay have thought that it would allow them to overthrow, but that was not why the amendment was included.

Second, you can't be armed well enough today to actually overthrow anyone. We could become as miserable as iraq, I suppose, but we could not defeat our army. So, that argument wouldn't hold up well today.

Really?, I want to see the politican that runs a campaign on the "own a tank, or surface to air missle" platform....heh, heh...

But, see, this is where I think in this creeping incrementalism thing, that we have strayed. Show me in Article 3 where the court is to "interpret" the Constitution?

Also, please document any "extreme radical" in this country that has been caught with a tank, or SAM, I would think that would be news. So, the "silliness" stems on both sides eh?


j-mac

The Consititution is a legal document. As such, disputes in what is says goes to court, and often leads us the the third branch, the SCOTUS.

And don't over read what I wrote. I am not claiming there are extreme radicals, though there may be, but only one would want those things.

That said, a rocket launcher isn't that far removed from wanting an automatic weapon. Most of us don't want one, but some do. And it is more than like some wouldlike to have a rocket launcer. I bet if we worked hard, we could find someone who wanted a tank. And would you really argue there are no radical groups that wouldn't want a nuke?

My point is, the miltary has these things, and if we use the context of the standing army too literally, whihc no one has, then we would eb saying people could have these things. I don't think you would support that.
 
I guess policing his own city is not high on Mr. Bloomberg's list of priorities.

Brian
 
No idea what was going through Bloomber's head, but the gun show loophole is idiotic and should be closed. Everyone knows that it is abused on a daily basis by individuals who can't pass a background check, and by sellers who damned well are dealers in all but name who cater to the criminal element.
 
No idea what was going through Bloomber's head, but the gun show loophole is idiotic and should be closed. Everyone knows that it is abused on a daily basis by individuals who can't pass a background check, and by sellers who damned well are dealers in all but name who cater to the criminal element.

Sorry but there is no such thing as the "gun show loophole."
All firearm dealers are required to process all individuals through the background check process.
Unless they have a concealed carry permit.

The dealer in the video, was committing multiple felonies.
Enforce those laws, instead.
 
No idea what was going through Bloomber's head, but the gun show loophole is idiotic and should be closed. Everyone knows that it is abused on a daily basis by individuals who can't pass a background check, and by sellers who damned well are dealers in all but name who cater to the criminal element.

sadly you again are wrong. very few weapons used in crimes were obtained at gun shows and the rules at a gun show are no different than anywhere else in a given state
 
Back
Top Bottom