the whites in NYC would lose their freedom to own a gun because the oppressed puerto ricans are using them to kill
The ACLU are not the power behind gun laws and the NRA is a power. There is also a power like the NYC police who did what they thought was best and it produced results. Cities don't have to be those scary places that make people far away stock up on guns. When a city has less homicides than your state, that should be a wake up call that something isn't being done right. Tragedy should be avoided.
The ACLU, not the NRA stopped NYCs stop and frisk. It does not matter how any times you repeat your post hoc fallacy, it remains a post hoc fallacy.
Indeed it would. All firearms, absolutely all in existence, are equally lethal, regardless of the type or configuration. Except for the simple fact that preventing the legal ownership of firearms does not, in any way, shape, or fashion, do anything to protect so much as even one single person in society. And there is absolutely nothing that can be cited on the part of yourself, to demonstrate the contrary. In truth it was the ACLU that objected to the stop and frisk program, as it was used in conjunction with racial profiling and racial bias on the part of individual law enforcement officers as a justification for harassing minority individuals.
So you say, but the aim in NYC was just to get the guns off the streets. NYC is very diverse. It's not exactly "Midnight Cowboy", if you know what I mean. Those Dustin Hoffman Puerto Rican days are gone. NYC is more than a city, it's a part of the Northeast Corridor, well developed land from Boston to Washington. A huge amount of the population of the US lives in that area, it's truly a metropolis that will eventually expand down to Richmond. The people living in that area don't sound like they ate paint chip breakfasts, so they'll just do what they want to do and say the hell with anyone on a different plane. They are looking out for their own public safety and ignore that some people who aren't. It's the old: "People will do as they want to do, in spite of you" growing up experience.
Is it hard to understand that people living in other areas and experiencing other things aren't going to give a damn about what you think is constitutional or even what some judge has to say? Different area of the country are going to look out for their own personal interests, which I think they should under the basic concept of government. I support a government making logical laws and it isn't me claiming some federal prohibition. It makes sense to me for areas to make local gun laws needed to protect the public. It makes sense to me, the rules can't be universal and need to be tailored to specific areas. It makes sense to me that people aren't going to listen to someone confused about their rights wanting to shove their rights down the throats of others. It makes sense to ignore that kind of person.
Firearm-related restrictions do not serve to protect the public, as they simply cannot. No firearm-related restriction has ever served to prevent even a single illegal acquisition of a firearm by an individual who should not have possessed one, nor as any firearm-related restriction served to prevent even a single firearm-related murder from taking place. It is nothing more than a myth, perpetuated by those who believe laws can somehow prevent physical actions from being carried out. That matter aside, even if firearm-related restrictions did somehow serve to protect the public from some degree of harm posed by the illegal misuse of firearms, it would still not be sufficient, as per the united state supreme court. It ruled back in Heller that the scope of the second amendment is not, cannot, and shall not, be weighed against intangible, poorly-explained concepts such as "public safety" as such a judicial interest balancing test would be utilized to justify a total prohibition on firearms. As such, the so-called "public safety" argument has been rendered moot, and has been for over a decade. Then what is being stated on the part of yourself, is that constitutional rights, which are supposed to protect the public from government, simply should not apply or even exist in certain areas of the united states. There is simply no other way for the statement on the part of yourself to actually be interpreted.
It doesn't matter where you are or what you think about it - the 2A jurisprudence from the USSC applies everywhere. So long as they do not violate the constitution, sure.
If those weapon can be in the wrong hands it would be chaos just like the shooting incident happened lately in a mosque were a lot of Muslim died on that incident.
Then explain, in precise detail, how firearm-related restrictions actually serve to prevent firearms from being acquired by those who simply should not have them.
Unreasonable search and seizure is illegal. It's in plain English. No search and seizure is allowed without probable cause. The Stop and Frisk in New York was done without probable cause.
The problem with this and most things right-wingers say is, it takes more than saying it for it to be true.
Wow, liberals are starting to think that basic civil liberties aren't important? Do you want cops to just be able to search people walking down the streets at will? Rules can be universal. In fact, it is unfair to have different rules for different people (see the 14th Amendment).
