Posted on 04/16/2006 5:33:39 AM PDT by Pharmboy
Two brothers who were shot defending their Brooklyn shop from a pair of stick-up men were busted for returning fire with an illegal handgun, police sources said. The gunfight erupted at 7:40 p.m. Friday when the two bandits, entered Vinnie's Style, a clothing boutique on Flatbush Avenue.
One of the pair allegedly fired a .45-caliber pistol when the brothers, Paul and Jacob Parris, refused to get down.
Both were charged with weapons possession when cops learned the Parris' used an unlicensed 9mm pistol in the shootout, sources said.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
I have seen this so, so many times, and each time, I ask: "Do you think that any half-decent CSI couldn't figure out what transpired? Really, now.
"I heart NYC. No, wait, make that I hate NYC."
How's 'bout calling it the "Big Sh*tty". Lots of my colleagues do. And some have lived there, as have I. Though, in all fairness, many large cities qualify for that title/name.
Friends don't help friends brake the law. Perhaps you unfamilar with the bible teachings of obeying the laws of the government.
In any case you seem to have a different definition of due process.
Due process is through the court system.. not through laws of the land. While we can't write a law to enable to search any house at any time without due cause.. we certainly can pass laws regarding society.
As usual I find myself talking to another Republican who picks and choose sections of the constitution at which to interrupt his way.
It's no wonder judges find that abortion is a right to privacy.
The right to bear arms is not the right to bear any arms. Technology has provided us automatic weapons... tanks.. and nukes.. I guess the way you read the Constitution we shall be able to keep a low yield nuke in our closests just in case the Government gets a little out of hand.
Instead of reading things the way you want you might want to go back and take a look. THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS means that we can have weapons.. it doesn't say that right can't be regulated.. it doesn't say that we have the right to bear any type of arm.. and certainly doesn't you get to throw in due process because you feel like adding that into an amendment that doesn't even talk about due process.
Stick up men or the NY City government. What is the difference?
Chances are this won't get as far as a jury trial. And if it did, the judge would forbid the defense to make any mention of the circumstances surrounding how they came to be charged with possession of an unregistered handgun.
Well, cannon were certainly available during the time the Bill of Rights was written. I must've missed the part in the Second Amendment where it limits an individual's right to only having small arms. Perhaps you can point it out....
Alrighty then.. I would love for you to carry a sign saying I support an individuals right to have nuclear weapons.
And, you still have not pointed out in the BoR where it says that individuals are limited to small arms...waiting...waiting [sound of fingers tapping on table].
Cheers [oh--and don't try and change the subject again--it won't work]
At the time, the state's militias were considered a defense mechanism against federal tyranny and would have been 'regulated' well enough to thwart an attack.
Given that today's armies are equipped with nukes, it would seem reasonable to equip at least a few states with them as well, otherwise they (the states) are placed at a serious disadvantage and would/could/might suffer tyranny as a necessary byproduct of their survival. Not in the possession of any particular militia grunt perhaps, but a governor, yes. (And were I governor of California, my first act would be to place Feinstein and Boxer under arrest for un-American activities and appoint two successors to the senate).
The right to bear arms doesn't mean that you can't put restrictions on those rights. I don't want a 4 year old running around with a gun.
Yep, reasonable regulations concerning guns can be written by fed state, & local governments, as long as they do not infringe on our rights to life, liberty or property, without due process of law.
Prohibitions on guns violate due process in both writing & enforcing.
-- you seem to have a different definition of due process.
Not at all. Laws must be written taking due process into account. Laws repugnant to Constitutional principles are null & void.
You can have rights.. but have common sense applied to them. You think it's unconstitutional that's your business.
It's everybody's business.. We are all obligated to protect & defend our supreme laws.. The 2nd is the "Law of the Land".
Due process is through the court system.. not through laws of the land.
Not true. Our Constitutions 'law of the land' trumps the court system, the legislative system, or the executive systems powers.
While we can't write a law to enable to search any house at any time without due cause.. we certainly can pass laws regarding society.
Only laws that comply constitutionally. Prohibitions on guns do not apply.
But then you are willing of course to pay the penalty for those that don't see things your way. You carry around all the illegal firearms you want..
There are no "illegal firearms" under the Constitution. -- Some types are just unreasonably regulated. Such prohibitions are unconstitutional.
but please don't ever provide your name or I'll be the first person to call in the ATF on you.
Nice to know who your friends are, -- thanks.
Friends don't help friends brake the law. Perhaps you unfamilar with the bible teachings of obeying the laws of the government.
Sorry, but your version of biblical law does not affect my Constitutional rights.
As usual I find myself talking to another Republican who picks and choose sections of the constitution at which to interrupt his way. It's no wonder judges find that abortion is a right to privacy. The right to bear arms is not the right to bear any arms. Technology has provided us automatic weapons... tanks.. and nukes..
I guess the way you read the Constitution we shall be able to keep a low yield nuke in our closests just in case the Government gets a little out of hand.
As I said above, reasonable regulations are Constitutional. We have reasonable regs on nukes, unreasonable on automatic weapons.
Instead of reading things the way you want you might want to go back and take a look. THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS means that we can have weapons.. it doesn't say that right can't be regulated.. it doesn't say that we have the right to bear any type of arm..
"Shall not be infringed" is quite specific.
and certainly doesn't you get to throw in due process because you feel like adding that into an amendment that doesn't even talk about due process.
The 14th applies to all other Amendments. Our rights to life, liberty, or property [guns are property] are protected by its provisions.
Can you say anywhere in the Constitution that says you have the right to bear "any and all" arms?
Then you would say that the individual doesn't have a right to nukes.. I could entertain the fact that a State could have weapons based on the fact that we want state rights and the states are entitled to well regulated militas.
However that's a different subject entirely.
Is there any part that limits the arms one can bear?
"As I said above, reasonable regulations are Constitutional. We have reasonable regs on nukes, unreasonable on automatic weapons"
and....
'"Shall not be infringed" is quite specific."
Thanks for proving my point that you have an opinion on the way the constitution reads.
You have an opinion on what is reasonable and what is not reasonable... a tank or nuke is reasonable.. automatic weapons is not.
You interrupt things the way you want to. That doesn't mean that the founders agree with you.
Now an opinion I can respect.. but I would have to disagree with you on.
But don't hold your opinion so high that you think you are above the law.. it can and will catch up with you.
And I guess that's where one's opinion would come in?
I'm not sure what you mean. One's opinion of what?
The right to bear arms is not the right to bear any arms. Technology has provided us automatic weapons... tanks.. and nukes..
I guess the way you read the Constitution we shall be able to keep a low yield nuke in our closests just in case the Government gets a little out of hand.
As I said above, reasonable regulations are Constitutional. We have reasonable regs on nukes, unreasonable on automatic weapons.
Instead of reading things the way you want you might want to go back and take a look. THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS means that we can have weapons.. it doesn't say that right can't be regulated.. it doesn't say that we have the right to bear any type of arm..
"Shall not be infringed" is quite specific.
and certainly doesn't you get to throw in due process because you feel like adding that into an amendment that doesn't even talk about due process.
The 14th applies to all other Amendments. Our rights to life, liberty, or property [guns are property] are protected by its provisions.
You have an opinion on what is reasonable and what is not reasonable... a tank or nuke is reasonable.. automatic weapons is not.
Read much? I said that we have reasonable regs about nukes, and unreasonable regulations on owning automatic weapons & tank cannons, etc. Anyone can own a 'tank', since they aren't regulated.
You interrupt things the way you want to. That doesn't mean that the founders agree with you.
Do you think the founders agree with your theory that: -- "The right to bear arms is not the right to bear any arms."
Now an opinion I can respect.. but I would have to disagree with you on. But don't hold your opinion so high that you think you are above the law.. it can and will catch up with you.
I don't think I'm "above the law". Feel free to show where I've said anything like that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.