Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

NYPD sends notice to gun owners in NY

profile picture
theBearJew
Posts: 10951 - Karma: 15,633
http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/06/new-york-city-confiscating-rifles-and-shotguns/

New York City confiscating rifles and shotguns

The New York City Police Department (NYPD) is sending out letters telling gun owners to turn over their rifles and shotguns — or else face the consequences.

New York City’s ban on rifles and shotguns that hold more than five rounds is now being enforced, according to a letter the NYPD is sending out to targeted city gun owners.

“It appears you are in possession of a rifle and/or Shotgun (listed below) that has an ammunition feeding device capable of holding more than five (5) rounds of ammunition. Rifles and shotguns capable of holding more than five (5) rounds of ammunition are unlawful to possess in New York City, as per NYC Administrative Code 10-306 (b).”


“You have the following options,” the letter explains.

“1. Immediately surrender your Rifle and/or Shotgun to your local police precinct, and notify this office of the invoice number. The firearm may be sold or permanently removed from the City of New York thereafter.

2. Permanently remove your Rifle and/or Shotgun from New York City and provide the following…Disposition Report/Registration Certificate…Notarized statement of permanent removal…Utility bill or other proof of residency regarding the address where the firearm will be stored outside the City of New York.

3. You may call to discuss the matter if you believe your firearm is in compliance…”

Departing New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is a major gun-control activist, with his coalition recently sponsoring an ad that depicts an Adam Lanza-type character entering a school full of children.


New York state, meanwhile, passed the NY SAFE Act in 2013 in response to the Sandy Hook shooting. The law, which bans “high-capacity magazines” and puts in place other stringent controls, was signed by governor and 2016 presidential hopeful Andrew Cuomo.

------


They're coming for your guns.
Dec 10 2013 12:55PM
542 196
profile picture
Benson.
Posts: 2739 - Karma: 3,787
Click for larger image
Dec 10 2013 9:49PM
2 1
profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51585 - Karma: 161,708
I love how controlling guns in regard to American citizens is a big deal but arming random rebel groups is no big deal. We'll pretty much give anyone a gun if we have something against a group they're fighting.

Click for larger image
Dec 10 2013 9:51PM
4 0
profile picture
JAHpow
Posts: 7282 - Karma: 17,175
Why not? If they're law-abiding why should they be restricted?
Dec 10 2013 9:53PM
5 0
profile picture
987321654hgfd
Posts: 5133 - Karma: 5,447
Or even if we're against them. Don't forget about fast and furious

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal
Dec 10 2013 9:58PM
2 0
profile picture
.Capn.
Posts: 1454 - Karma: 152
I'm using a hypothetical situation to succinctly illustrate why you are wrong. No real world example needs to be cited. You are incorrect about the concept of inalienable. Calm down about the example though, no where was I trying to relate that to any real world concept. Ever.

"All rights are inalienable" as in both sets of rights in the example. Again, none of that relates to the right to bear arms or any other real world example; it's only to show you how inalienable doesn't mean unchanging.

Inalienable rights cannot be transferred, taken away or surrendered. I agree. But you just add in changed to that definition and it is simply wrong. Inalienable rights can be changed.

You're absolutely correct the right to bear arms isn't inalienable. That's part of why I laughed at your original statement. All I did was laugh at that post, it was nonsensical and deserved a laugh. Go reread it and try to disagree.


Dec 10 2013 10:00PM
1 1
profile picture
iH8pow
Posts: 1803 - Karma: 7,643
so glad I live in Colorado Utah and Oklahoma. Guns will never be restricted in at least 2 of the 3 states.
Dec 10 2013 10:16PM
0 0
profile picture
Benson.
Posts: 2739 - Karma: 3,787
Nope, that example is invalid because the rights being described weren't inalienable. At least pertaining to Jefferson's definition in the Declaration of Independence, which is what the USA's "inalienable" rights are based on. He says that "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". Thus, the new people who weren't alive when the rights changed are not being subjected to inalienable rights, because if the rights truly were inalienable, then all humans being created in the USA would be inherently born with them. Whether you believe in a "Creator" or not is irrelevant, the fact is, inalienable rights are endowed upon each human who is born in the United States NO MATTER WHAT. Thus, changing one of these rights before birth makes the right in question not inalienable. So yes, inalienable rights cannot be changed.
Dec 10 2013 10:21PM
1 0
profile picture
Benson.
Posts: 2739 - Karma: 3,787
In fact, I don't even think Jefferson's definition is limited to just the USA. He says "all men" are endowed with certain inalienable rights. Meaning that if you change the right, and then factor in a grandfather clause, the right only remains inalienable for those being grandfathered in. The ones who have yet to be "created" are not being subjected to an inalienable right, because the changed right that they are being endowed with is not the same as the supposedly inalienable one that they are endowed by their "Creator" with.

The right changed, so the original right, which was inalienable, has been effectively taken away and replaced with a new one. Find me an example where an inalienable right can be changed and still remain in place as the equivalent right for all peoples present and future. You can't because the people in the future won't be endowed with it upon birth, they will be endowed with a new, changed version that is not the same, thus rendering the right not inalienable. You have taken the right away from these people yet to be born and given them a new one. Just because you replace the right with a different, changed version doesn't mean you didn't take it away in the first place.
Dec 10 2013 10:33PM
0 0
profile picture
.Capn.
Posts: 1454 - Karma: 152
First of all he says "unalienable". The terms are now synonymous but when you quote directly it looks like you don't know what you're talking about. Also, he did not coin the term unalienable. That definition already existed and still did not include "unchanging". Again, my example did not mirror any real world example. The rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness have not ever been changed or taken away from US citizens, I agree. But this still does not pertain to the fact that based on the legal definition of the word, unalienable rights CAN be changed.
Dec 10 2013 10:40PM
0 0
profile picture
Ben.
Posts: 21463 - Karma: 683
Its "inalienable".



Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is from the Declaration of Independence, which is not a legal document, just a part of US history.



And to those talking about inalienable rights, the constitution was written 200 years ago, when we said black people were 3/5ths of a white person. People should be able to own guns, legal gun owners should be able to really own whatever guns they want, the issue I have is with who we are allowing to be "legal gun owners". Too many people have access to guns that shouldn't. Our current background check is failing us miserably.

There also need to be higher punishments for straw purchases, and people who store their guns unsafely and lead to accidents. People who have guns stolen need to be required (and enforced) to report that immediately. Responsible gun owners aren't the problem. Unfortunately America is also full of a multitude of incredibly unsafe gun owners.
Dec 10 2013 10:48PM
2 0
profile picture
.Capn.
Posts: 1454 - Karma: 152
A right does not have to remain in place for nonexisting human beings to be unalienable? Future human beings can not legally have anything guaranteed for themselves, that notion is inane.

I'm done. Look up the definition of unalienable. It does not include unchanging.

Go read up on natural rights (and identify when they are considered to be inalienable) through out history; hint they change with philosophy, culture and regime.

Good day.

Dec 10 2013 10:53PM
0 1
profile picture
.Capn.
Posts: 1454 - Karma: 152
No it's not. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html


I understand. He brought the Declaration of Independence into the discussion. I don't know why.


I don't disagree with a lot of the rest of your post though so try not cast stones my way.
Dec 10 2013 10:57PM
0 1
profile picture
oil.
Posts: 2255 - Karma: 1,254
natural rights are, by there very nature, inalienable (or unalienable- whatever tickles your fancy, they are the same god damn word)
from wikipedia:
natural rights are those not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable.
Dec 10 2013 11:08PM
0 0
profile picture
.Capn.
Posts: 1454 - Karma: 152
Thats a touchy one that you won't get everyone in a room to agree on. But I won't fight you on this. We can use them synonymously from here on out if no one objects. I just thought I would leave it open incase he didn't see them as the same in every circumstance
Dec 10 2013 11:16PM
0 0
profile picture
Benson.
Posts: 2739 - Karma: 3,787
I pulled that from memory dude, you're really call me out on a one letter difference? No, it doesn't make me look like I don't know what I'm talking about. They're the same word, just as you said.

I realize Jefferson didn't coin the term, but that is the definition of inalienable right in the United States' Declaration of Independence. I'm talking about inalienable rights in America, because this is a thread about American gun control. If you look back to the post that started this, it's pretty clear I'm referring to inalienable rights in America, not the "legal" definition. And yes, by Jefferson's definition, inalienable rights can't be changed.
Dec 10 2013 11:20PM
0 0
profile picture
Benson.
Posts: 2739 - Karma: 3,787
That is what a natural right is. Some say that natural rights and inalienable rights are the same, like oil said. There is room for interpretation, you even admitted it when you said that you won't get everyone in a room to agree on it.
Dec 10 2013 11:26PM
1 0
profile picture
Benson.
Posts: 2739 - Karma: 3,787
No one in this thread is saying that the right to bear arms is an inalienable right. I've stated that in this thread before. We just somehow got into a long argument about the definition of inalienable and what it implies, not whether or not the 2nd Amendment is inalienable.

Anyhow, I agree wholeheartedly with your post, and I've been saying this for a while. I don't think we need more restrictive gun laws, I think we need more restrictive and intensive background checks. It only makes sense. This way, the people who want and deserve guns can have them, and those who don't deserve them won't get their hands on them so easily. Law-abiding citizens who like guns can have them, and criminals will be harder-pressed to get them. It only makes sense.
Dec 10 2013 11:32PM
1 0
profile picture
.Capn.
Posts: 1454 - Karma: 152
A natural right is not 'legally' guaranteed to future, currently nonexistent human beings in the United States. Natural rights are generally considered inalienable but inalienable rights are not always natural rights. Even if we use them synonymously you can find ample historical examples of societies that did not consider 'freedom of religion' or 'right to property' to be natural, inalienable rights. Whereas the philosophy that the United States was founded on, such as that of John Locke, would most certainly consider those rights natural and inalienable. Both philosophies have inalienable rights but they can certainly be different. And that is one example of how inalienable rights change through out time.

This whole thing has really taken away from the discussion at hand which honestly was much more relevant and interesting. Can we shift focus back? I only laughed at your the initial post because I thought it was funny, I didn't mean to offend.
Dec 10 2013 11:48PM
0 0
profile picture
Ben.
Posts: 21463 - Karma: 683
The rest of my post wasnt specifically directed at you, just didnt want to double post.








Another side note, I'm not huge on concealed carry. If you are packing, you are just as safe if its visible, if not moreso (less likely to be robbed if the dude knows you are armed eh?). I want to know if I'm around people carrying guns, so I can be prepared to not become your backstop when you feel threatened.
Dec 10 2013 11:49PM
0 0
profile picture
Benson.
Posts: 2739 - Karma: 3,787
Yes, we should, and I wasn't offended. It's all good.
Dec 10 2013 11:54PM
1 0
profile picture
Logey.
Posts: 2996 - Karma: 457
I don't quite understand what kind of positive results that might come from this?
Dec 11 2013 12:18AM
0 0
profile picture
Benson.
Posts: 2739 - Karma: 3,787
Oh, don't worry, there are none. This is damage control at its finest. They're getting good press for "preventing gun violence" in the wake of Newtown, when in reality they're just taking guns from people who already have them and aren't using them for crime instead of limiting the flow of guns into the market or cracking down on criminals and their unregistered weapons.
Dec 11 2013 12:23AM
1 0
profile picture
Logey.
Posts: 2996 - Karma: 457
Is this the same guy that banned pop over 20 ounces or something? If he somehow manages to become president, I'm jumping the fence into Mexico
Dec 11 2013 12:30AM
1 0
profile picture
Mr.Huck
Posts: 6096 - Karma: 14,896
None at all. Criminals will still have guns and continue to kill people with them. Lawful gun owners, who do not commit crimes, will be unable to own certain guns. Many of the guns that they will not be legally able to own are types of guns which are statistically the least likely to be used in violent crimes. It's kind of like trying to lower the number of drowning deaths, by making bathtubs illegal.
Dec 11 2013 12:39AM
3 0
profile picture
iFlip
Posts: 4543 - Karma: 19,132
Would you believe around 350 people per year drown in their bathtubs? Regardless, this law is a blatant attack on my American rights. Like I said, this will make many people criminals who otherwise would never break a law. The "I'll give up my guns when they pry them from my cold, dead hands" mantra is still alive and well. Gun owners will not easily be persuaded to part with their rifles and shotguns. Why force this upon them and make them into criminals?
Dec 11 2013 1:32AM
1 0
profile picture
Bombogenesis
Posts: 1984 - Karma: 4,006
Cause big gubmint knows what's best for you bro
Dec 11 2013 5:38AM
0 0
profile picture
Blake.P
Posts: 9894 - Karma: 3,585
And after we were freed from an oppressive government, the new one in place has, over time, become just as oppressive
Dec 11 2013 5:52AM
1 0
profile picture
coling
Posts: 1086 - Karma: -3
Haha new york...
Dec 11 2013 6:42AM
1 0
profile picture
-benedetto
Posts: 5238 - Karma: 1,359
None of these beaucratic terms hold any weight when I drive to the nearest city and buy whatever illegal gun I want..
Dec 11 2013 7:11AM
0 0
profile picture
987321654hgfd
Posts: 5133 - Karma: 5,447
This needs to be emphasized.
Dec 11 2013 8:23AM
1 0
profile picture
itsbenyo
Posts: 106 - Karma: 214
heres an idea: any government official that wants to make a gun control law should have to take a mandatory firearm safety class. at the end of the class a test would be issued to see if they payed attention. maybe then they would smarten up...
Dec 11 2013 11:01AM
0 0
profile picture
987321654hgfd
Posts: 5133 - Karma: 5,447
They should also be banned from having armed guards. If the average American citizen isn't allowed to defend himself with a legally owned firearm, they shouldn't be able to either. Diane Feinstein had a concealed carry permit for fucks sake and wants to disarm her subjects more than any other politician.
Dec 11 2013 11:10AM
2 0
profile picture
howlongcanausern
Posts: 4982 - Karma: 1,737
guns are out of control in this country
Dec 11 2013 11:24AM
1 4
profile picture
Mr.Huck
Posts: 6096 - Karma: 14,896
Click for larger image
Dec 11 2013 11:42AM
2 0
profile picture
L3NNY
Posts: 63 - Karma: 881
yea i saw that bs... dnt want to dive down this rabbit hole debate, but i'll say I am proudly an NRA lifetime member. I love my guns, and my status quo.


Dec 11 2013 11:44AM
3 0
profile picture
Benson.
Posts: 2739 - Karma: 3,787
Yeah, they're just so out of control. So prevalent everywhere, you just can't seem get away from them. People are just running around brandishing their guns willy-nilly, shooting places up all the time. I feel threatened by guns almost constantly in our society. GUNS..............the horror. So out of control...
Dec 11 2013 12:14PM
2 1
profile picture
spliff.Life
Posts: 7847 - Karma: 1,549
ahahahahaha who the  hell who just hand over their guns, which are usually worth a good lump of money, to the police? sounds like the worst idea ever to me
Dec 11 2013 12:18PM
0 0
profile picture
Charlie_Kelly
Posts: 11954 - Karma: 12,297
Media are*
Dec 11 2013 1:18PM
0 0
profile picture
qazwsxedc34
Posts: 2934 - Karma: 2,171
Lets find solutions within the problem, it always works. Right?

I find it odd that rifles cause 3.5% of gun related deaths and they TARGET the AR-15 a subset of a rifle.

Here in the US, violent crime and murder rate has seen between a 50% to 54% reduction since the mid 1980’s, decreasing every year.

Violent crime and murder rates have never been better here.

The problem greatly lies in specific metropolitan areas with a population greater than 200,000.
These areas double our national average in regards to violent crime and murder rate.

I think the best solution is to improve the well-being of others, ameliorate education, improve a communities environment, fix wealth inequality, improve poverty levels, teach the younger generations to embrace their humanity, etc.

But no it’s the guns fault, so lets take them from law-abiding citizens. I see a hidden agenda

I have an AR-15 locked up in a safe. A family a few blocks away was raped and killed under gunpoint. Their house was ransacked. I have the right to defend myself and my family if need be.
Dec 11 2013 1:20PM
0 0
profile picture
qazwsxedc34
Posts: 2934 - Karma: 2,171
If Diane Feinstein can have a gun, we can all have guns.

Please she doesn’t even know what a semi-atumatic rifle is.
Dec 11 2013 1:24PM
3 0
profile picture
Miomo
Posts: 4302 - Karma: 14,133
Commie
Dec 11 2013 1:32PM
1 1
profile picture
SFB
Posts: 8895 - Karma: 26,352
apparently neither do you.
Dec 11 2013 1:34PM
0 0
profile picture
KravtZ
Posts: 6637 - Karma: 2,629
Classic lib response. Anyone who wants to own a gun should be able to own a gun based on our constitution, as well as the right to protect yourself. Granted, banning automatic weapons is an entire different issue. The people who live in low income areas do not give a fuck what anyone tells or them or think, especially from figures of authority. Taking away good citizens guns will only allow the poor and the dirty to thrive due to lack of protection. Just look at the people who join gangs and use these illegal guns...there absolute morons. Watch gangland and just see the intelligence level of some of these fools. Nothing you tell them they will listen. Ill take my guns and take a fine or whatever they are willing to give
Dec 11 2013 1:36PM
0 0
profile picture
qazwsxedc34
Posts: 2934 - Karma: 2,171
You must be a onepercenter.
Dec 11 2013 1:42PM
1 1
profile picture
cobra_commander
Posts: 16909 - Karma: 4,686
On my phone so don't have access to it, but the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy published a study several years ago that showed coolant crime, to include homicide generally increases when weapons are banned and confiscated. There is also no significant reduction in homicides or suicides I believe.

Anti gun legislation is generally more rooted in fear and emotion than facts and logic.
Dec 11 2013 1:51PM
2 0
profile picture
Benson.
Posts: 2739 - Karma: 3,787
.
Dec 11 2013 1:59PM
0 0
profile picture
deleted5
Posts: 14507 - Karma: 13,507
i was going to post a study i read on how concealed carry holder are more likely to get shot, because they put themselfs in situations because they have a false sense of security. but on the first page of google i think this proves my point. https://www.google.com/search?q=cc+holder+are+more+likly+to+get+shot&oq=cc+holder+are+more+likly+to+get+shot&aqs=chrome..69i57.8311j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8#es_sm=122&espv=210&q=concealed+carry+holder+are+more+likely+to+get+shot&spell=1

I don't really know that much about gun so maybe this dose qualify as Anti gun legislation. But i really do think people need to prove to us they are responsible enough to walk around with guns in their pocket. After they do that go nuts, I'd trust el as long as he wasn't sitting next to me on newschoolers with a gun, he seems like a responsible guy. If you've never been to nyc then its kind of hard for you to understand, but you just can't have a ton of people walking around 24/7 with guns. there are too many people and I can only image how many people are going to get put in the cross fire. There are certain places you know not go to at night and if you walk around them with a gun, you're looking for trouble. Should we ban guns no, but we need to set rules in place, where a select few people can't get them, (like a blind guy who sued some state who wouldn't give him a gun saying that all people under the Constitution are allowed to have one.) or be irresponsible, and put themselves in a situation where they would need it unless they absolutely had too.

Does anyone really not believe that wouldn't help put the country?
Dec 11 2013 2:38PM
1 3
profile picture
howlongcanausern
Posts: 4982 - Karma: 1,737
you're gonna need a hell of a lot more than one study to debunk the widely-held hypothesis 'more guns=more safe'
Dec 11 2013 2:44PM
0 0
profile picture
deleted5
Posts: 14507 - Karma: 13,507
super glad that's what you got from my post.
Dec 11 2013 3:26PM
0 0
profile picture
Bombogenesis
Posts: 1984 - Karma: 4,006
QFE. I fucking hate all of you
Dec 11 2013 3:42PM
3 0
All times are Eastern (-5)