• 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

LaMidRighter said:
Semantics aside an official is not supposed to engage in these types of activities, the fact that he is an authority in NYC means that anything he commissions iin this area is a police action.
Click to expand...

That's nonsense. If Bloomberg sends someone on his staff to study Chicago's sewage system, that's a police action?
 
AdamT said:
And my point is that it is NOW INCORPORATED, so his argument is moot. WTF is wrong with you?
Click to expand...

No, actually, it wasn't. You were arguing that it was automatic; you didn't start saying "now" incorporated until it was pointed out to you.

I guess WTF is "wrong" with me is that I recognize when someone is shifting from point to point, which is problematic for the person doing it.
 
Harshaw said:
No, actually, it wasn't. You were arguing that it was automatic; you didn't start saying "now" incorporated until it was pointed out to you.

I guess WTF is "wrong" with me is that I recognize when someone is shifting from point to point, which is problematic for the person doing it.
Click to expand...

I was talking about the current state of the law -- not the history of the 2d Amendment. :roll:
 
AdamT said:
True, if they were paid they had to be licensed. Do we know that he didn't hire in-state PIs?



You don't have to provide any information to a private seller. That's kind of the whole point of the exercise.
Click to expand...
You sure don't have to provide info. however you still cannot lie during the purchase of the weapon. The PIs were falsifying not only their identities but their intent, they also committed entrapment in doing so. All of those are illegal.

AdamT said:
That's nonsense. If Bloomberg sends someone on his staff to study Chicago's sewage system, that's a police action?
Click to expand...
Studying the sewer system is not doing so to prove criminal activity. Apples and oranges.
 
AdamT said:
Yes, I get it perfectly, and thanks for making my point. If it's unconstitutional for the federal government to take away your 2d A. rights, then it's unconstitutional for states to do the same.
Click to expand...


You are confused again-one sovereign doesn't have the power to act in this area and that is not due to the second but the tenth
 
Harshaw said:
Uh, no. He correctly pointed out that the 2A wasn't incorporated until McDonald.

Boy, you'd think, if you were going to attempt to speak on this stuff authoritatively, you'd at least have some notion that prior to McDonald, one of the chief arguments in favor of state gun control, as cited in opinion after opinion all over state and federal courts, was that the 2A was not incorporated.

But you plod forward not knowing that anyway.
Click to expand...
ITs fun seeing freshly minted attorneys who really have no background in this topic pretending that they are learned on this subject so that they can play silly games of gotcha that everyone else sees as a pathetic attempt to cover up their lack of knowledge as they attempt to create a facade for their emotobabbling anti gun idiocy
 
AdamT said:
Again, you can say it's illegal all night long, but AFAIK he hasn't violated ANY laws. One doesn't have to be a licensed investigator to buy a gun at a gun show.
Click to expand...


but you are unable to understand that if these people bought guns when they weren't residents of the state in question that is a violation of federal law
 
AdamT said:
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.
Click to expand...

Abused, yeah those damn gunower's abusing their liberty. Bastards!!
 
LaMidRighter said:
You sure don't have to provide info. however you still cannot lie during the purchase of the weapon. The PIs were falsifying not only their identities but their intent, they also committed entrapment in doing so. All of those are illegal.

Studying the sewer system is not doing so to prove criminal activity. Apples and oranges.
Click to expand...

Brewer should tell Bloomberg if he ever shows up in Arizona, he's going to go live with Sheriff Joe.
 
American said:
Brewer should tell Bloomberg if he ever shows up in Arizona, he's going to go live with Sheriff Joe.
Click to expand...

It would be like Brewer sending some guys to NYC to buy crack and after they bought it, she held a press conference whining that NY didn't enforce federal drug laws. Those buyers of the crack cannot claim that they are above the law just because they were there to embarass the mayor
 
TurtleDude said:
It would be like Brewer sending some guys to NYC to buy crack and after they bought it, she held a press conference whining that NY didn't enforce federal drug laws. Those buyers of the crack cannot claim that they are above the law just because they were there to embarass the mayor
Click to expand...

I think Sheriff Joe would be glad to build a special pink tent for Bloomy. :lamo
 
AdamT said:
I was talking about the current state of the law -- not the history of the 2d Amendment. :roll:
Click to expand...

No, you weren't. You were talking abstract theory, which is why you said "if." :roll:
 
j-mac said:
What the....? Look, if you want to change a constitutionally protected right, then amend the constitution. Short of that you have Judicial activism period.
Click to expand...

It would take an amendment to change it. I agree. And the courts have not changed it. They've only allowed for regulation, which has always been seen as part of the amendment.



I don't think anyone is saying that, however, I do think we need to evaluate and discard those regulations that are duplicates, and, or work against our rights as defined by the Constitution.
Click to expand...

You should read your fellow conservatives. Some are saying that.

As for duplicate, as always, each one should be addressed individually.



What? Ok, explain to me in the simplest terms what a law is then....
Click to expand...

Easy, as noted, within set regulations, you may have a weapon. Simple. No court has ruled otherwise.


Yes, especially when ideology is involved. I am not saying that we need to do away with courts, just that they get back to their Constitutional restrictions, and not make law. Why is that a bad thing?


j-mac
Click to expand...

The trouble is one view of what is Constitutional will always be different than another. The same mixed reading that causes something to go to court is involved when reading what the court decided. See the problem?
 
TurtleDude said:
ITs fun seeing freshly minted attorneys who really have no background in this topic pretending that they are learned on this subject so that they can play silly games of gotcha that everyone else sees as a pathetic attempt to cover up their lack of knowledge as they attempt to create a facade for their emotobabbling anti gun idiocy
Click to expand...

Freshly minted! :lol:
 
TurtleDude said:
You are confused again-one sovereign doesn't have the power to act in this area and that is not due to the second but the tenth
Click to expand...

One of us is certainly confused. The reams of federal gun legislation currently in effect demonstrate who that is.
 
TurtleDude said:
but you are unable to understand that if these people bought guns when they weren't residents of the state in question that is a violation of federal law
Click to expand...

I'm able to understand that you are unable to cite to any law that supports your false assertion.
 
Harshaw said:
No, you weren't. You were talking abstract theory, which is why you said "if." :roll:
Click to expand...

No, I wasn't. Try to keep up with the conversation.
 
TurtleDude said:
It would be like Brewer sending some guys to NYC to buy crack and after they bought it, she held a press conference whining that NY didn't enforce federal drug laws. Those buyers of the crack cannot claim that they are above the law just because they were there to embarass the mayor
Click to expand...

No, it wouldn't be like that at all, because buying guns is legal and buying crack is not.
 
AdamT said:
No, I wasn't. Try to keep up with the conversation.
Click to expand...

Well, it's not like there was ever a chance you'd admit it. :roll:
 
AdamT said:
I'm able to understand that you are unable to cite to any law that supports your false assertion.
Click to expand...




Are you that ignorant? In order to buy a gun out of state, one must transfer it to a licened dealer in your state. For example I can buy a gun and have in PA. however, I cannot take possession of it until its transfer to an FFL in my state and all applications in my state are satisfied.


I trailed off this topic as hoplophobia is such an ugly thing and not worth my time, but I see lawyers arguing with each other over laws I seem to know more about than half the "attorneys" in this discussion, I just hafta say..... :doh
 
AdamT said:
No, it wouldn't be like that at all, because buying guns is legal and buying crack is not.
Click to expand...



It would be like AZ sending it's cops to brooklyn to operate a strawman sting... do you think king bloomberg would stand for that?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
It would be like AZ sending it's cops to brooklyn to operate a strawman sting... do you think king bloomberg would stand for that?
Click to expand...

Or to investigate illigal aliens employed there or something.

yes - ridiculous . . . I know the mayor means well in this effort to try to track down illegally bought guns because they're involved in crimes - but he should work WITH authorities and not against or without them.

And I don't think I'd be thrilled AT ALL if my mayor used MY tax money to tinker in another state - in fact: I'd be infuriated and confrontational. How much money was it - what ELSE could it have been used for? How many times do we hear from our officials in our towns and cities that 'there's no enough money, we can't fund improvement of the school, sidewalk, roads, buildings or waterways' - and then they spend mounds of it in stuff that doesn't necessarily directly affect the community?
 
Harshaw said:
Well, it's not like there was ever a chance you'd admit it. :roll:
Click to expand...

True, I would never "admit" something that's demonstrably false.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Are you that ignorant? In order to buy a gun out of state, one must transfer it to a licened dealer in your state. For example I can buy a gun and have in PA. however, I cannot take possession of it until its transfer to an FFL in my state and all applications in my state are satisfied.


I trailed off this topic as hoplophobia is such an ugly thing and not worth my time, but I see lawyers arguing with each other over laws I seem to know more about than half the "attorneys" in this discussion, I just hafta say..... :doh
Click to expand...

Apples <-> Oranges. Bloomberg's people didn't mail order the guns from Arizona. They had people in Arizona buy the guns in Arizona.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom