Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: New yorks turn

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Oregon,Linn County
    Posts
    1,991

    New yorks turn

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014...tration-forms/
    .NY Officials Are Demanding They Register Their Guns – Here’s What They Did With the Registration Forms
    Mar. 17, 2014 4:18pm Jason Howerton
    24.6K
    Shares

    Gun rights advocates in Saratoga Springs, N.Y., reportedly burned nearly one thousand gun registration forms to ashes in a clear act of civil disobedience.

    Under the hastily-passed SAFE Act, Gun owners have until April 15 to register their so-called semi-automatic rifles that fall under the state’s own definition of “military-style assault weapons.” The forms they burned are the very forms the state wants them to turn in registering their firearms.

    Instead, gun owners rallied at the Saratoga-Wilton Elks Lodge 161 to torch the forms in a “symbolic protest,” the Post-Star reports.

    Jake Palmateer, co-founder of NY2A, the gun rights group that organized the protest, said the group stands against gun registration because the “evidence is clear that registration leads to confiscation.”

    Palmateer also said he and other gun owners hope so few people register their guns that the provision “collapses under its own weight.” As previously reported by TheBlaze, tens of thousands of so-called assault weapons in Connecticut also have not been registered as now required by law.

    “[Palmateer] estimates that less than 3,000 New York assault weapons have been registered and he says Sate Police estimated that there are several hundred thousand,” the Post-Star reports. “The gun industry believes the number may be high as 1.2 million, according to Palmateer.”

    Ultimately, he added, “this is a civil rights issue.”
    Looks kinda like the Blue States are one upping the Red ones. For now.
    Gun Control? "We'll Fight Them, Sir!, Until Hell Freezes Over, And Then We'll Fight Them On The Ice! Sir!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Valencia. Spain.
    Posts
    2,191
    The so called 'law-abiding', 'responsible' gun owners advocating civil disobedience...brilliant! It would appear that the' law-abiding' gun owning hypocrites only wish to abide by the laws that they agree with! Idi*ts!
    How to make yourself look a fool in one sentence....

    (P.S. worshiping only has 1 p not 2.)
    --johnson--.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Dani View Post
    The so called 'law-abiding', 'responsible' gun owners advocating civil disobedience...brilliant! It would appear that the' law-abiding' gun owning hypocrites only wish to abide by the laws that they agree with! Idi*ts!
    You may wish to research the concept of civil disobedience and its history in the nation's development. The entire reasons blacks are recognized as equal to whites under the law is due to civil disobedience protesting what were regarded as unjust standards and laws.
    If one cannot have an argument without resorting to hyperbole, name calling and emotional rhetoric, then they have lost the argument from their first post.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Oregon,Linn County
    Posts
    1,991
    As I brought before this is your birth right how you were indoctrinated to think.No not quote unquote but close enough. You would rather just take it than do something because you were told it wasn't acceptable to protect yourselves.
    http://clashdaily.com/2013/01/the-sh...#ixzz2HmdnMWw1
    Gun Control? "We'll Fight Them, Sir!, Until Hell Freezes Over, And Then We'll Fight Them On The Ice! Sir!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Valencia. Spain.
    Posts
    2,191
    Quote Originally Posted by zsu2357 View Post
    As I brought before this is your birth right how you were indoctrinated to think. No not quote unquote but close enough. You would rather just take it than do something because you were told it wasn't acceptable to protect yourselves.
    http://clashdaily.com/2013/01/the-sh...#ixzz2HmdnMWw1
    You really are a clown aren't you and you get worse by the day. I'm actually begining to feel embarrassed for you.

    Yet another pro-gun toilet paper publication that can't get it's facts right. For one thing, Martin was actually released in 2003 after serving 3 years and is not "now serving a life sentence" as stated in your pro-gun rag dated January 2013. Best thing you can do is to actually READ the Wiki link given in your rag and in that way you will (hopefully) educate yourself as to the facts of the case and why he was sent to prison.
    How to make yourself look a fool in one sentence....

    (P.S. worshiping only has 1 p not 2.)
    --johnson--.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Dani View Post
    You really are a clown aren't you and you get worse by the day. I'm actually begining to feel embarrassed for you.

    Yet another pro-gun toilet paper publication that can't get it's facts right. For one thing, Martin was actually released in 2003 after serving 3 years and is not "now serving a life sentence" as stated in your pro-gun rag dated January 2013. Best thing you can do is to actually READ the Wiki link given in your rag and in that way you will (hopefully) educate yourself as to the facts of the case and why he was sent to prison.
    And the matter pertaining to Brenton Fearon being allowed to sue Tony Martin for lost wages due to injuries sustained after breaking into his home to commit robbery?
    If one cannot have an argument without resorting to hyperbole, name calling and emotional rhetoric, then they have lost the argument from their first post.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Oregon,Linn County
    Posts
    1,991
    Quote Originally Posted by Dani View Post
    You really are a clown aren't you and you get worse by the day. I'm actually begining to feel embarrassed for you.

    Yet another pro-gun toilet paper publication that can't get it's facts right. For one thing, Martin was actually released in 2003 after serving 3 years and is not "now serving a life sentence" as stated in your pro-gun rag dated January 2013. Best thing you can do is to actually READ the Wiki link given in your rag and in that way you will (hopefully) educate yourself as to the facts of the case and why he was sent to prison.
    He acted in defense of himself and property, why was he even charged? Oh that's right HE HAD A GUN! DID NOT HOLD A VALID SHOTGUN CERTIFICATE. So if he had been a fine law-abiding citizen and not shot him what might have happened? Or if he was a fine law-abiding citizen and had his"papers in order" and then shot him what would have happened?
    You missed the whole idea behind the posting.
    Gun Control? "We'll Fight Them, Sir!, Until Hell Freezes Over, And Then We'll Fight Them On The Ice! Sir!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Oregon,Linn County
    Posts
    1,991
    I think in my house Brenton Fearon's injuries would have been fatal. Fact seems to be they were in Martins house when they shouldn't have been. Stairwell,hallway or in the bathroom. Your law just doesn't allow self defense or more apply permit.
    Gun Control? "We'll Fight Them, Sir!, Until Hell Freezes Over, And Then We'll Fight Them On The Ice! Sir!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Valencia. Spain.
    Posts
    2,191
    Quote Originally Posted by zsu2357 View Post
    I think in my house Brenton Fearon's injuries would have been fatal. Fact seems to be they were in Martins house when they shouldn't have been. Stairwell,hallway or in the bathroom. Your law just doesn't allow self defense or more apply permit.
    Yes it does. What it doesn't permit is murder. The jury found, on hearing the scientific evidence, that he was not telling the truth about the incident and that rather than shooting the burglar in self-defence whilst being confronted by them as he claimed, Martin shot them whilst they were running away from him with an illegal weapon that he was not licensed to hold. The jury also heard how he fired that same gun a someone that was taking an apple from his orchard. The verdict was that he was a f*cking psychopath. You clearly didn't read the Wiki article did you? You were too busy drooling over your toilet-paper pro-gun rubbish...because THAT told you what you wanted to hear rather than what was true. You, as usual, were not interested in whether or not it was true.
    Last edited by Dani; 03-19-2014 at 03:13 AM.
    How to make yourself look a fool in one sentence....

    (P.S. worshiping only has 1 p not 2.)
    --johnson--.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Valencia. Spain.
    Posts
    2,191
    Quote Originally Posted by zsu2357 View Post
    He acted in defense of himself and property,
    No he didn't and the scientific/forensic/medical evidence presented at the trail showed that he was in no danger from the intruders. In Britain, you can't kill someone just because they break into your house; you can kill them if they break into your house and threaten your life.

    why was he even charged?
    ...because in Britain, you are allowed to use reasonable force to protect yourself or your property. It was considered that shooting someone in the back with and illegal firearm that you were not licensed to hold whilst they were running away from you, did not constitute 'reasonable' force. During the trail it was found, from the evidence provided that the two burglars did not constitute a thread to Martin at the time they were shot and that Martin had deliberately lied about the incident. The one intruder had already run from the house and was outside.

    Oh that's right HE HAD A GUN! DID NOT HOLD A VALID SHOTGUN CERTIFICATE.
    Not quite right. He had an ILLEGAL gun and he did not hold a FIREARM certificate. He was also known to the police from previous gun offences.

    So if he had been a fine law-abiding citizen and not shot him what might have happened?
    How would I know....but if the two intruders had attacked him or there was reasonable evidence that Martin feared for his safety then Martin could have protected himself by any means within the law.

    Or if he was a fine law-abiding citizen and had his"papers in order" and then shot him what would have happened?
    In this particular case, Martin would still be charged with murder because the evidence showed that he (Martin) was in no danger from the intruders, that in fact, THEY were fleeing from him when they were shot and that he was a friggin psychopath that had illegal weapons and a history of shooting at people because they took an apple from his tree!!

    You missed the whole idea behind the posting.
    Oh no! I got the point of your post completely. You were trolling through your pro-gun garbage and found a bunch of tripe about someone that was charged with murder for shooting intruders in his home...and you jumped on that like a starving dog on a bone and tried to use it to justify the public having guns. Unfortunately for you - but very predictable, you failed to bother to investigate the case fully before shouting your mouth off and as a consequence made rather a fool of yourself. You haven't even got the integrity to admit that your article was wrong in stating that, in January 2013, Martin was still in prison serving a life sentence - when in fact, Martin was released from prison in 2003 after serving three years of the five year sentence he was given for the crime of murder.

    You see, you need to understand what is meant by 'reasonable force'.
    I am permitted to use reasonable force to protect myself and my possessions. If I am attacked and I feel my life is in danger, I would be allowed to kill the attacker in order to safeguard my own life. If someone breaks into my house and I confront them and they run away, I am not allowed to chase after them, catch them in the garden and then kill them. I would doubt that is even allowed in you country either...but that is basically what Martin did...chased them and shot at them as they were running away. Both intruders had injuries to the back of their bodies, indicating that the were running away from Martin when they were shot, not confronting him as Martin claimed.

    I can use reasonable force to safeguard my home. I can build a high fence to keep people out but I can't connect that fence to a 50,000 volt electricity supply.

    Do you understand?
    Last edited by Dani; 03-19-2014 at 03:11 AM.
    How to make yourself look a fool in one sentence....

    (P.S. worshiping only has 1 p not 2.)
    --johnson--.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Oregon,Linn County
    Posts
    1,991
    =Dani;478938]No he didn't and the scientific/forensic/medical evidence presented at the trail showed that he was in no danger from the intruders. In Britain, you can't kill someone just because they break into your house; you can kill them if they break into your house and threaten your life.
    That's just wrong.Well OK there apparently. So if I understand they break in(aka intruders)and you wait until they threaten your life?
    ...because in Britain, you are allowed to use reasonable force to protect yourself or your property. It was considered that shooting someone in the back with and illegal firearm that you were not licensed to hold whilst they were running away from you, did not constitute 'reasonable' force. During the trail it was found, from the evidence provided that the two burglars did not constitute a thread to Martin at the time they were shot and that Martin had deliberately lied about the incident. The one intruder had already run from the house and was outside.
    Hmm taking your shoties away? If you don't have a license you can't even hold a gun? Forensics or not who was the witness? Brenton Fearon? I took hold the wrong way?Right.
    Not quite right. He had an ILLEGAL gun and he did not hold a FIREARM certificate. He was also known to the police from previous gun offences.
    I just can't get past needing a certificate to own a shotgun. And as far as the apple scrumping? I guess stealing. Didn't uncle Joe Biden say get a double barrel shotgun and let both barrels go in the air,maybe that's what he did.
    How would I know....but if the two intruders had attacked him or there was reasonable evidence that Martin feared for his safety then Martin could have protected himself by any means within the law.
    Maybe he didn't give them the chance to,too,two.Hey covering my bases.
    In this particular case, Martin would still be charged with murder because the evidence showed that he (Martin) was in no danger from the intruders, that in fact, THEY were fleeing from him when they were shot and that he was a friggin psychopath that had illegal weapons and a history of shooting at people because they took an apple from his tree!!
    He would have probably been charged in any case. BECAUSE GUNS ARE BAD! At or over(their heads), chances are at them he would have hit something.
    Oh no! I got the point of your post completely. You were trolling through your pro-gun garbage and found a bunch of tripe about someone that was charged with murder for shooting intruders in his home...and you jumped on that like a starving dog on a bone and tried to use it to justify the public having guns. Unfortunately for you - but very predictable, you failed to bother to investigate the case fully before shouting your mouth off and as a consequence made rather a fool of yourself. You haven't even got the integrity to admit that your article was wrong in stating that, in January 2013, Martin was still in prison serving a life sentence - when in fact, Martin was released from prison in 2003 after serving three years of the five year sentence he was given for the crime of murder.
    Thing is Dani boy I could care less really about the whole Martin thing(though he may think different)all I was doing was showing how you incrementally gave up your gun rights and anyone owning one is painted by your media as nuts,crazy,three fries short of a happy meal.
    You see, you need to understand what is meant by 'reasonable force'.
    9mm is reasonable .45 is devastating.
    I am permitted to use reasonable force to protect myself and my possessions. If I am attacked and I feel my life is in danger, I would be allowed to kill the attacker in order to safeguard my own life. If someone breaks into my house and I confront them and they run away, I am not allowed to chase after them, catch them in the garden and then kill them. I would doubt that is even allowed in you country either.
    That is the difference! You wait and see if the intruder is going to play nice! Why is he in your house to grab a snack? I saw a guy walk when he shot and killed a teen breaking into his car in the wee hours. Chase them down outside and catch them then kill them probably not. He would however have the fear of god put in him.
    ..but that is basically what Martin did...chased them and shot at them as they were running away. Both intruders had injuries to the back of their bodies, indicating that the were running away from Martin when they were shot, not confronting him as Martin claimed.
    IN HIS HOUSE!
    I can use reasonable force to safeguard my home. I can build a high fence to keep people out but I can't connect that fence to a 50,000 volt electricity supply.
    I can also use reasonable force.9mm FMJ or hollow points FTW. Choices are good.
    Do you understand?
    Do you?
    Gun Control? "We'll Fight Them, Sir!, Until Hell Freezes Over, And Then We'll Fight Them On The Ice! Sir!

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Valencia. Spain.
    Posts
    2,191
    Quote Originally Posted by zsu2357 View Post
    So if I understand they break in(aka intruders)and you wait until they threaten your life?
    Not exactly. You can use reasonable force to remove them from your property. Killing them when you are not in danger is not considered 'reasonable'

    Hmm taking your shoties away? If you don't have a license you can't even hold a gun? Forensics or not who was the witness? Brenton Fearon? I took hold the wrong way?Right.
    The forensic and medical evidence was that the dead man was shot in the back and thus was facing away from Martin at the time he was shot. Sorry if that's difficult for you to work out. Again, had you read up on the case you would have known this.

    I just can't get past needing a certificate to own a shotgun.
    It's the law and as responsible citizens we abide by the law. Having a licensing system ensures that the gun can be traced to its owner and goes some way to ensuring brainless m*rons are not allowed to own guns. Most people with more than half a brain cell think the latter alone is an excellent idea and reason enough to have gun licensing.

    And as far as the apple scrumping? I guess stealing. Didn't uncle Joe Biden say get a double barrel shotgun and let both barrels go in the air,maybe that's what he did.
    No he fired at the person's vehicle as he was sitting in it. Yet more evidence that, even after making a fool of yourself, you didn't bother to read the Wiki article about the case. It tells you about the scrumping incident in the article.

    Thing is Dani boy I could care less really about the whole Martin thing...
    Well zsuzsu boy...you cared enough about it to have posted it when you thought it supported your lunacy...now, when you've shot yourself in the foot with it, you want to disassociate yourself from it! LMFAO!!

    ...all I was doing was showing how you incrementally gave up your gun rights and anyone owning one is painted by your media as nuts,crazy,three fries short of a happy meal.
    That is not the case at all. Many of our citizens are licensed to own guns for sporting and recreational purposes and nobody thinks they are nuts, crazy or three fries short of a happy meal. The people that we DO think are nuts, crazy and three fries short of a happy meal are people that think that it's good to have arsenals of military weapons and no control on guns and gun ownership. That would be people like you btw.

    You see lad, you need to get it into your head that it's nothing to do with 'taking away our protection' or our right to protection. In Europe, WE DON'T WANT GUNS; we have no need for guns; we are not obsessed with owning guns and military weapons; we feel no desperate need to portray a 'macho' image and thus drive cars rather than 'trucks'; we do not feel threatened by psychopaths in our homes or when we walk the streets; we live in peace with our neighbour and enjoy his company without feeling the need to shoot him dead because his TV was on too loud; we want our children to grow up in countries here they can go to school without fear of being gunned down at their desk; we subscribe to the verifiable and testable evidence which shows that countries that have little to no restriction/control on guns have higher rates of deaths from guns than those that do have restrictions and above all, we don't want the 'American Disease' in our countries. Don't you even get that??

    9mm is reasonable .45 is devastating.
    I rest my case!

    That is the difference! You wait and see if the intruder is going to play nice!
    Look pal. All you are doing is continuing to make a clown of yourself. Any European citizen can take measures to remove intruders from their homes. What we can't do is shoot and kill someone simply because they are on/in our property...and rightly so. The trespass laws give the home owner rights of protection. Those rights do not include murder.

    IN HIS HOUSE!
    It doesn't matter! The law does not allow us to murder someone when that someone is not a threat to us. What happened to when all you gun-tottin' all-American cowboys used to say 'Only a coward shoots a man in the back'!

    Do you?
    Oh yes! I do understand your embarrassment, especially your embarrassment with the misinformation (I'll be nice and not say 'deliberate lies' - though that's what it was) your pro-gun, toilet-paper article gave when it said that in 2013, Martin was in prison serving a life sentence when in fact, he was released in 2003 after serving three-years of a five-year sentence. I also note that you still haven't got the integrity to admit that they were wrong in saying that. You have about as much integrity as Xenamnes...which isn't much!
    Last edited by Dani; 03-19-2014 at 12:54 PM.
    How to make yourself look a fool in one sentence....

    (P.S. worshiping only has 1 p not 2.)
    --johnson--.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,575
    Perhaps it is time to try and gain clarity on the matter.

    Are you attempting to say that if Tony Martin possessed valid documentation of his shotgun at the time and forensic evidence at least suggested his account was reasonably accurate he would have potentially been found not guilty?

    Are we correct to assume that deadly force is legal within the united kingdom if the circumstances demand it? And if so then in what situations is it recognized as a legal exercise of such? If someone's home is broken into precisely how long is it required to wait before deadly force can be considered viable?
    If one cannot have an argument without resorting to hyperbole, name calling and emotional rhetoric, then they have lost the argument from their first post.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Oregon,Linn County
    Posts
    1,991
    http://gunssavelives.net/blog/gun-la...act-mag-limit/
    BREAKING: New York State Police Instructed Not to Enforce SAFE Act Mag Limit
    March 26 2014
    by Dan Cannon
    Share This Post


    9mm_magazine stockA court ruling had already determined that the 7 round magazine limit imposed by New York’s SAFE Act was unconstitutional. However, the ruling will likely face court challenges in other courts before it’s all said and done.

    In the meantime, apparently the New York State Police have joined other law enforcement agencies in instructing their officers not to enforce the law as it currently stands.

    The following press release is from the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association:

    ALBANY, NY (03/26/2014)- The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association is pleased to announce that the Revised New York State Police NY SAFE Act Guide instructs its members not to enforce the 7-round magazine limit originally imposed by the hastily enacted measure.

    “This is a direct result of the December 31, 2013 ruling in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York on litigation filed by NYSRPA,” said NYSRPA President Thomas King. The court ruled that the unlawful possession of certain ammunition feeding devices (fully loaded 10-round magazines) was unconstitutional.

    “The New York State Police have followed the same sensible path taken by the New York Sheriffs’ Association and many local law-enforcement agencies in not enforcing a capricious, ill-conceived and unconstitutional portion of the NY SAFE Act,” stated King. “To date, NYSRPA has spent over $500,000 in litigation and we are prepared to fight the NY SAFE Act all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court where we are confident that many provisions of the law will ultimately be overturned.”

    Citing the secretive and hurried process in which the NY SAFE Act became law, King said, “Lawmakers, mental health professionals, and New York’s gun owners were essentially ignored in the rush to enact this law. As a result, careful judicial scrutiny is uncovering some of the law’s flaws and unenforceability.

    New York’s legal gun owners are among the most law-abiding citizens of this state and ultimately their civil rights will be upheld.”
    Who would enforce this stupid law if County and State troopers are outta play?
    Gun Control? "We'll Fight Them, Sir!, Until Hell Freezes Over, And Then We'll Fight Them On The Ice! Sir!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •