Skip to main content

View Diary: We are winning! Voters Rejecting the NRA! (151 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So, not addressing the point and bringing up (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Otteray Scribe, andalusi

    something I didn't, means what again?

    Did you miss the part about having your property made inert?  A ban without taking the item, ie a "voluntary confiscation".

    Or the bigger point, an unalienable right is now defined under PENAL CODES.

    All semi-automatic weapons that can take a magazine of 8 or more rounds is illegal.

    As for the "adjudicated" part. Yep, without any due process, I have been stripped of the right to keep and bear arms by the simple fact I'm a recovered alcoholic with 24+ yrs sobriety AND a transgendered woman, both conditions are defined in NYS Statutes as a mental illness.

    If I wish to now exercise said right, as I've been told, I must pay $4000 or more for a private psychiatrist to "certify" I'm sane.  Then petition a court to grant me reprieve.  But here in NY, the "authoritarians" among us have fixed that too.

    A defacto ban considering I cannot afford fees such as that.  A law designed to "protect" and ensure the po' people are forevermore disarmed.

    These "regulations" must be deemed unconstitutional.  And we have case law regarding "poll taxes", don't we?

    -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

    by gerrilea on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 11:07:40 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  You don't seem to have a point. (0+ / 0-)

      You just throw incoherent nonsense into a comment, and you think it's an argument.  

      BTW, if you've been "adjudicated" as something, then you've had your due process.  The adjudication is the process.  Due process does not mean "getting the result you want."

      As for the cost, yeah, lots of things in life cost money.  That will sometimes put those things out of the reach of many people.  But being expensive isn't a ban.  I can't afford a Rolls Royce, but that doesn't mean Rolls Royces are banned.  

      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

      by FogCityJohn on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 11:16:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You've failed to address anything I've stated. (0+ / 0-)

        You decided to tell me what you read but never addressed what I pointed out.  That's called MISDIRECTION AND a RED HERRING.

        Answer the questions put to you.  Is it not confiscation when the item you've owned becomes inoperable through arbitrary restrictions? The 7 bullet magazine capacity IS confiscation.  Confiscation without compensation.

        Now since your red herring/misdirection does directly effect me, I will address it.

        If you are diagnosed with a mental illness you cannot exercise a right.  That isn't anything more or less than dictates. The NYS Legislature has made itself into the judge and jury and deemed sentencing.  That's "due process" today?

        If I wish to exercise said privilege, I must pay thousands of dollars to prove my "innocence", after conviction.

        That's the "adjudication" you defend here.

        Address these things.  Address the fact that it has already been decided that "poll taxes" are unconstitutional, how is this any different from a poll tax?  You can't vote unless you pay.  You can't bear arms unless you pay.

        Your false comparisons don't work.  "lots of things in life cost money.  That will sometimes put those things out of reach for many people".  

        IN THIS CASE, it's an unalienable right, not a privilege to drive an expensive car.  Clearly NYS does not believe the US Constitution applies here.  

        From Pg 778

            "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms".

            This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed.

        Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.

        NYS has just destroyed the constitution itself by declaring those "mentally" scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.

        Take note I changed one word, "mentally" with "religiously".

        Will the next step be that you have a mental illness if you want to keep and bear arms? Wanting to keep and bear arms as prima facie evidence of a mental illness?  

        MANY HERE have said that already.  Many MSM pundits have said it as well.

        We're all "gun nuts" already, right?!

        It's a very dangerous game you're playing and supporting here.

        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

        by gerrilea on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 12:26:36 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site