so then the only people who will be carrying guns are the POLICE.
and we have seen how responsible they can be with "non-lethal" alternatives.

***Notice he said "illegal guns"***

Why don't you go live in the projects surrounded by violent criminals, and then I want to hear your views on the 2nd Amendment.

Bravo Mayor Booker.

>> ^longde:
Notice he said "illegal guns"
Why don't you go live in the projects surrounded by violent criminals, and then I want to hear your views on the 2nd Amendment.
Bravo Mayor Booker.


Ignorance. How can a right be illegal? Maybe your free speech should be illegal? Or your right to a speedy trial? Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment? You seem to want to pick and choose other people's rights based on your fear of them, namely those in the projects which is probably racially motivated.

Government has no constitutional right to take away, grant or give permission to your rights. You lose, sir. Good day, sir.

Are you serious? Of course certain gun ownership can be illegal. Felons and insane people, for instance, are not allowed to own guns. People are not allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Just two out of many exceptions to the 2nd and 1st amendments.

Rights should not necessarily be absolute.

^longde, if a felon is not rehabilitated enough to deserve his "rights" back then why should he be set free? If he's a threat, then why should he be set free? If he is set free, then he's no longer a threat, right? Therefore, he deserves his rights. Hence the term of "setting him free" - it implies being "FREE".

For your information, someone who moons anyone in the state of California is considered a 'sex offender' and therefore a felon. Have you ever mooned someone?

And as an aside, yelling "fire" in a theater is an absurd example because you're talking about a private business, and they have the right to kick you out for whatever reason.

*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Tuesday, July 14th, 2009 7:46pm PDT - promote requested by original submitter blankfist.

For the love Blankfist, they don't have the right to kick you out for any reason, which is why you are able to go to that movie without having to worry about your friends being white, or straight, or christian, etc... private buisness or no.

BF, you have an idealistic view of our justice system. There are many guilty people on the streets, and many innocents on death row.

With gun laws, I don't think the founders' intent was that bandits and brigands should be able to terrorize and hold as virtual hostage law-abiding citizens. That law was to defend against the tyranny of the state. Since the state and society has evolved and grown more complex in the ensuing 200-plus years, we have to use our discretion on where to apply these rights. A mafia collecting a debt or a drug dealer defending his turf, or simply some idiot intimidating people are not defending against the state.

Also, there are certain types of weapons that are not legal. I don't think people should be allowed to walk around with or even own semi-automatic weapons.

Your argument about the private theater is also unrealistic. Your constitutional rights apply in public or private spaces. The restrictions on these rights apply as well. I don't know how any movie theater manager can tell who will yell "fire", beforehand, so he can kick them out preventatively.

But for the sake of argument, let's change "movie theater" to "crowded public space".

Great Idea. I think it's commendable. And I'm seriously pro-gun and have no problem with this.

Blankfist as someone who has lived next to Newark NJ pretty much his entire life I can assure you that most of the people in Newark who possess firearms don't get a shit about the second amendment.

Most of the people that own guns probably are illegal and will use them for nefarious deeds and the Mayor is doing the right thing.

Blankfist, you've obviously have never been to Newark. My brother lived there for a few years during his studies.

I agree with your "right to bear arms" statement, but I believe it's the right to OWN a gun, not the right to carry a concealed weapon that you can pull out anywhere at your own choosing.

I'll also agree with Darkhand in the post above and I'll also add that these guns are/were usually used for purposes that would infringe on the rights of others. (i.e. robbing, murder, etc)

Yelling fire in a theater doesn't get you kicked out, it gets you arrested. Being obscene in court will get you jailed for contempt. And it should. The government can definitely outlaw certain types of speech. Rights have reasonable limits, some of which were decided by the same generation of statesmen that founded the country and wrote the Bill of Rights.

For those who slept through 9th grade, the test applied to free speech is "time, place, and manner." You have the right to express your ideas, but you have responsibilities as a citizen: to express those ideas in a way that does not disrupt the normal function of civil society, cause panic, or incite violence.

Gun control is obviously a murkier subject, and one that gets reexamined all the time. Saying that the right to bear arms necessarily allows all forms of weapon ownership and use is a thoughtless oversimplification.

Hunting weapons are ok. With strict rules and regulations. It should be very hard to obtain one.

Anything else is for murderers and other criminals.

The "right" to own something designed to kill other people is no right. It has nothing to do with civil liberties.

the best way to keep your collection of self defense firearms is let these people do something about the slaughter in their streets.