Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

NutmegYankee

(16,204 posts)

34. And it all depends on how they enforce it.

Reply to edhopper (Reply #33)

Mon Jul 4, 2016, 06:22 PM

Jul 2016

Last edited Mon Jul 4, 2016, 07:03 PM - Edit history (1)

If anyone can apply and get one, it's probably legal. If it's only for select people, it's illegal. That New York City charges $400 versus $10 in the rest of New York is currently a point in litigation as illegal.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

42 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The right of the People [View all] RobertEarl Jul 2016 OP

Who asked for "a blanket infringement upon all people"? sheshe2 Jul 2016 #1

I can only infer you're saying no one on DU has ever posted "ban all private ownership of guns". cherokeeprogressive Jul 2016 #9

You can infer what you please. sheshe2 Jul 2016 #10

LOL mmmkay. cherokeeprogressive Jul 2016 #12

Every right TeddyR Jul 2016 #2

And the right to sue... beevul Jul 2016 #21

If, as your torturing the language assumes, the founders intended a "collective" right.. X_Digger Jul 2016 #3

So everyone can have a gun edhopper Jul 2016 #4

That's it RobertEarl Jul 2016 #7

Because "right of the People" occurs a few other times. Igel Jul 2016 #24

Fine with me too. (nt) bigwillq Jul 2016 #11

"Including their home in some cities" is disenfranchisement by location. NutmegYankee Jul 2016 #32

New York City edhopper Jul 2016 #33

And it all depends on how they enforce it. NutmegYankee Jul 2016 #34

We agree then edhopper Jul 2016 #35

That was the key outcome of the Heller v. DC SCOTUS case. NutmegYankee Jul 2016 #36

yeah, but Heller edhopper Jul 2016 #37

I don't consider it atrocious. It basically stated the actual situation. NutmegYankee Jul 2016 #38

Nothing is set in stone. deathrind Jul 2016 #5

"People are losing their lives to firearms in ever increasing numbers" Oneka Jul 2016 #16

Forgot already? deathrind Jul 2016 #18

A single act of terror Oneka Jul 2016 #20

A "single act of terror"... deathrind Jul 2016 #23

"zero tolerance for compromise" beevul Jul 2016 #22

Compromise. deathrind Jul 2016 #25

Put your money where your keyboard is. beevul Jul 2016 #26

Gun Safety... deathrind Jul 2016 #27

LOL. beevul Jul 2016 #28

I'm tired of "compromise." FixTheProblem Jul 2016 #31

Like many Second Amendment gun types, guillaumeb Jul 2016 #6

What contradicts the point? TeddyR Jul 2016 #8

"Well regulated" bhikkhu Jul 2016 #14

That construction, {reason}, {statement} was common at the time. X_Digger Jul 2016 #15

Again, like Antonin Scalia, you quote a select fraction of the actual text. guillaumeb Jul 2016 #39

For 200+ years the Second Amendment has protected an individual right to keep and bear arms TeddyR Jul 2016 #40

Since YOU brought up the term "intellectual dishonesty", guillaumeb Jul 2016 #41

The Heller decision says it is a personal right. MohRokTah Jul 2016 #13

Why is the same phrase used in the 1st and 4th amendments considered an individual right? NutmegYankee Jul 2016 #17

Because that's exactly what it is. Just reading posts Jul 2016 #19

Right of the individual? RobertEarl Jul 2016 #29

So you have no right to privacy? NutmegYankee Jul 2016 #30

Simplistic dogma is both delicious and rationalized in today's environmen LanternWaste Jul 2016 #42