Need Bees Removed?
International
Beekeeping Forums
December 20, 2014, 11:43:08 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: ATTENTION ALL NEW MEMBERS
PLEASE READ THIS OR YOUR ACCOUNT MAY BE DELETED - CLICK HERE
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar bee removal Login Register Chat  

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Tell me one more time, bluebee  (Read 3741 times)
iddee
Galactic Bee
******
Online Online

Gender: Male
Posts: 6296

Location: Randleman, NC


« on: November 28, 2013, 07:20:41 AM »

You said they are not trying to take our guns.  Tell me that again, PLEASE....


http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/11/robert-farago/begins-new-york-sending-gun-confiscation-notices/
Logged

"Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me . . . Anything can happen, child. Anything can be"

*Shel Silverstein*
BlueBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4493

Location: Mid Michigan


« Reply #1 on: November 29, 2013, 04:34:06 AM »

Are you really that bad of a shot that you can’t kill a deer without an assault rifle  huh

There is a local lawyer around here that was arrested for converting assault rifles into automatics.  I just don’t get the obsession with killing in mass.  Just don’t recall that being the message of Jesus; but maybe I missed that lesson?  Maybe Jesus just wasn’t enlightened on the 2nd?   

I would call the obsession with assault rifles and automatics a mental sickness which should be a disabler from allowing a person to own a gun in the first place.  Conservative beeks always like to run for cover under the "mental illness" excuse when a gun nut does bad.   

BTW, that lawyer just got a slap on the wrist for his illegal gun mods UNTIL it was discovered he also helped bury a dead body!  He didn’t do the killing, but he did the burying.
Logged
Moots
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1460


Location: Gonzales LA (Southeastern Louisiana)


« Reply #2 on: November 29, 2013, 05:15:32 AM »

Blue,
Do you really think our founding fathers had protecting our right to deer hunt in mind when they wrote the 2nd amendment?  huh

And how exactly do you define "assault rifle".  Seems to be a buzz word that politicians love to throw around and aren't even sure what they mean by it.  I'm sure you do realize that the average riffle used to hunt deer is far more powerful than what most people consider an assault rifle.
Logged

"We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions."
                                                                                                                   - Ronald Reagan
iddee
Galactic Bee
******
Online Online

Gender: Male
Posts: 6296

Location: Randleman, NC


« Reply #3 on: November 29, 2013, 05:55:41 AM »

Sounding like a democrat there, blue.

1.. You didn't stay on topic.

2.. A .22 tube fed rifle holds about 25 shorts. or about 20 long rifle bullets. They are great for squirrels, or plinking. Great kid's gun. Not for deer or assault.

3.. Deer hunting isn't what the 2nd is about. It's protection from a tyrannical government.

4.. You still fail to admit it's just one more step toward communism or worse.
Logged

"Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me . . . Anything can happen, child. Anything can be"

*Shel Silverstein*
danno
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2281


Location: Ludington, Michigan


« Reply #4 on: November 29, 2013, 08:14:33 AM »

I wish that lawyer would have known you blueboy.   I bet even a piehole full of dirt wouldn't shut you up     
Logged
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15319


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #5 on: November 29, 2013, 12:08:04 PM »

Quote
I would call the obsession with assault rifles and automatics a mental sickness which should be a disabler from allowing a person to own a gun in the first place.

not a gun owner, are you?  define assault rifle.  you do know that except in very limited and highly licensed circumstances, automatic weapons are already illegal?

There is a legitimate argument to be made for free speech being dangerous.  bible burning in FL got people killed overseas.  the KKK propaganda caused death in the south.  i'm sure there are other examples.  would you be ok with limiting speech so that dangerous things are not said?

you could make the argument that certain religions have become dangerous.  would you be ok with limiting religions?  maybe banning just a few of them...not all, just a few?

the founders, having already experienced repression under various governments, put into the bill of rights the things that they felt were most important to preserving freedom.  among those things was the right for the individual to be armed.  some of them thought it a duty. 
leftists will tell you that it is a ridiculous idea that the people can make any difference against a modern army.  you need only look at places like Afghanistan or Syria to see that this is not true.

why do you think that every totalitarian government disarms it's people?  why do you think the UN is so hot to have the US disarmed?  think out of the box a little bluebee...........


Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
hjon71
Field Bee
***
Online Online

Gender: Male
Posts: 903


Location: SW Tenn


« Reply #6 on: November 29, 2013, 05:08:39 PM »

We must point out this is State law not Federal. As a believer in state's rights, while I completely disagree with gun control in any fashion, I believe they are within their constitutional boundaries. Let me explain before someone's head explodes.
The letter is an attempt by the city to enforce the state law. If you disagree you have a few options comply, comply until hopefully the law changes, become a civil disobedient(my 1st choice) or move outside the city or state(2nd choice).
If this were a Federal issue I would say "You can take it when I'm out of ammo or dead, whichever occurs first".
Logged

Quite difficult matters can be explained even to a slow-witted man, if only he has not already adopted a wrong opinion about them; but the simplest things cannot be made clear even to a very intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he already knows, and knows indubitably, the truth of the matter under consideration. -Leo Tolstoy
sterling
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1062

Location: mt juliet tn


« Reply #7 on: November 29, 2013, 07:33:33 PM »

>>There is a local lawyer around here that was arrested for converting assault rifles into automatics.  I just don’t get the obsession with killing in mass.  Just don’t recall that being the message of Jesus; but maybe I missed that lesson?  Maybe Jesus just wasn’t enlightened on the 2nd?    

Poor Blue. I don't think they had guns back in Jesus's day or the 2nd amendment. rolleyes Might  be why you missed that lesson. grin
Logged
Moots
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1460


Location: Gonzales LA (Southeastern Louisiana)


« Reply #8 on: November 29, 2013, 07:59:09 PM »

We must point out this is State law not Federal. As a believer in state's rights, while I completely disagree with gun control in any fashion, I believe they are within their constitutional boundaries. Let me explain before someone's head explodes.
The letter is an attempt by the city to enforce the state law. If you disagree you have a few options comply, comply until hopefully the law changes, become a civil disobedient(my 1st choice) or move outside the city or state(2nd choice).
If this were a Federal issue I would say "You can take it when I'm out of ammo or dead, whichever occurs first".

hjon,
The only problem with that argument is that Federal Law supersedes state law.  A state should not be allowed to deprive it's citizens of something clearly granted to them by the Federal Government.
Logged

"We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions."
                                                                                                                   - Ronald Reagan
hjon71
Field Bee
***
Online Online

Gender: Male
Posts: 903


Location: SW Tenn


« Reply #9 on: November 29, 2013, 08:47:59 PM »


Quote

hjon,
The only problem with that argument is that Federal Law supersedes state law.  A state should not be allowed to deprive it's citizens of something clearly granted to them by the Federal Government.

Please show me a federal law that currently supercedes the NY state magazine capacity law
Logged

Quite difficult matters can be explained even to a slow-witted man, if only he has not already adopted a wrong opinion about them; but the simplest things cannot be made clear even to a very intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he already knows, and knows indubitably, the truth of the matter under consideration. -Leo Tolstoy
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15319


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #10 on: November 29, 2013, 09:06:47 PM »

Quote
If this were a Federal issue I would say "You can take it when I'm out of ammo or dead, whichever occurs first".

Please show me a federal law that currently supercedes the NY state magazine capacity law

The states can not override the constitution when the instructions are specific.  in the case of the first amendment, the instructions are only to congress.  in theory, the states can (and have) do as they please with those 3 things.  other instructions are broad.  the 2nd amendment is obviously meant to cover all citizens. 

the SCOTUS has allowed the states some restrictions on gun ownership, registration, number that can be owned or purchased, etc. they can also regulate ammo and other accessories as they please.  while we understand that you need ammo to use the weapon, the right to ammo is not in the constitution.  on the other hand, they turned over DCs complete ban as unconstitutional. 
many of us believe that any restrictions are unconstitutional and think that if they want restrictions, they should move to change the law, not just ignore it. 
this does go to Moots point about how very important things like judges are......
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
iddee
Galactic Bee
******
Online Online

Gender: Male
Posts: 6296

Location: Randleman, NC


« Reply #11 on: November 29, 2013, 09:52:26 PM »

What part of "not infringe do you not understand'?
Logged

"Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me . . . Anything can happen, child. Anything can be"

*Shel Silverstein*
hjon71
Field Bee
***
Online Online

Gender: Male
Posts: 903


Location: SW Tenn


« Reply #12 on: November 29, 2013, 10:17:41 PM »

If you believe the SCOTUS will intervene here, I believe you are mistaken. I could be wrong, considering they made no ruling concerning the Federal Assault Weapon Ban of 1994. I just don't see it progressing past the state or district courts. Nor do I believe it should. I am after all, for state's rights.
Logged

Quite difficult matters can be explained even to a slow-witted man, if only he has not already adopted a wrong opinion about them; but the simplest things cannot be made clear even to a very intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he already knows, and knows indubitably, the truth of the matter under consideration. -Leo Tolstoy
Moots
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1460


Location: Gonzales LA (Southeastern Louisiana)


« Reply #13 on: November 30, 2013, 03:47:48 AM »

If you believe the SCOTUS will intervene here, I believe you are mistaken. I could be wrong, considering they made no ruling concerning the Federal Assault Weapon Ban of 1994. I just don't see it progressing past the state or district courts. Nor do I believe it should. I am after all, for state's rights.


hjon,
I think most all of us are big supporters of state's rights...However, we are not 50 independant nations.  State's right should involve ALL authority not clearly granted to the Federal Government via the Constitution.  However, authority clearly granted to the Federal Government takes precedence over states rights...The right to keep and bear arms is clearly one of these issues.

Maybe you are right and the current court won't go there.....BACK to my point of why the two major parties are actually quite different, regardless of how much you think they are identical...THE PEOPLE THEY PUT ON THE COURT!
Logged

"We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions."
                                                                                                                   - Ronald Reagan
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15319


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #14 on: November 30, 2013, 11:23:28 AM »

Quote
What part of "not infringe do you not understand'?

not sure who you are talking to?

Quote
If you believe the SCOTUS will intervene here, I believe you are mistaken.

i don't think they will intervene over magazine size.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
iddee
Galactic Bee
******
Online Online

Gender: Male
Posts: 6296

Location: Randleman, NC


« Reply #15 on: November 30, 2013, 12:37:04 PM »

""Please show me a federal law that currently supercedes the NY state magazine capacity law""

This is what I was referring to.

Logged

"Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me . . . Anything can happen, child. Anything can be"

*Shel Silverstein*
hjon71
Field Bee
***
Online Online

Gender: Male
Posts: 903


Location: SW Tenn


« Reply #16 on: November 30, 2013, 03:26:12 PM »

""Please show me a federal law that currently supercedes the NY state magazine capacity law""

This is what I was referring to.




Referring to "shall not infringe"?
I personally agree completely and is where I would attack laws like this.  I even read the NY state constitution just to see what it has to say about gun rights. You know, states rights and all that. It doesn't read like a few others let me see....
 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ny01.asp
Article XL(40)
My point isn't against the right to bear arms, but rather different people in different states interpret this idea differently. NY state decided to limit magazine capacity. I can't find a "shall not infringe" clause in The NY. State constitution.  That is the point I was trying to make earlier, I should have been clearer maybe.
The US Constitution limits the power of the Federal Government not the State I believe. Though this limitation/protection is slowly degrading due I believe to a progression toward bigger Federal Government. Which is once again I believe an error.
Logged

Quite difficult matters can be explained even to a slow-witted man, if only he has not already adopted a wrong opinion about them; but the simplest things cannot be made clear even to a very intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he already knows, and knows indubitably, the truth of the matter under consideration. -Leo Tolstoy
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15319


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #17 on: November 30, 2013, 03:39:56 PM »

Quote
The US Constitution limits the power of the Federal Government not the State I believe

except for those things specifically given to the federal government.  states can't make treaties with foreign governments, as an example.  they can't restrict the movement of good from one state to another.
other than the 1st amendment, the bill of rights does not specify that they are only (or not) federal rights.  they are interpreted as human rights extended to all citizens.  it's the courts that dink with these things.  that's why DC can limit access to weapons, but can't outright ban them. 

in theory, speech, religion, and press, could be regulated or supported by the states, and in the past, have been.
 
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
iddee
Galactic Bee
******
Online Online

Gender: Male
Posts: 6296

Location: Randleman, NC


« Reply #18 on: November 30, 2013, 03:42:55 PM »

So explain to me why Arizona can't make, change, modify, or enforce immigration laws, because they are federal, but New York can make, change, modify and enforce arms laws. Do federal laws trump state laws, or do they not?
Logged

"Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me . . . Anything can happen, child. Anything can be"

*Shel Silverstein*
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15319


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #19 on: November 30, 2013, 04:20:09 PM »

iddee, very good question.  why can states legalize pot when it's against federal law?  seems there's some selectivity in how these things are enforced.

according to the courts, it's ok for states to regulate weapons as long as they do not outright ban them.  i don't think that's what the constitution says, but that's the interpretation.  again....the importance of judges...which is why harry changed the rules in the senate.
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Beemaster's Beekeeping Ring
Previous | Home | Join | Random | Next
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines | Sitemap Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.302 seconds with 21 queries.

Google visited last this page December 19, 2014, 11:24:35 AM
anything