Hate stop and frisk but if we keep letting all of these guns in the city it will go back to the way it was before Giuliani went after guns and Bloomberg continued the policy. Easy gun access makes stop and frisk a necessary evil. We trade one set of rights for another.
We gave up a tremendous amount of civil rights after 9/11 when people were killed and we all got scared. When the major cities in this country start having gangs out powering police again we will get some sanity in our gun laws again.
And while you gloat, Dawgg.... 3 year olds are getting shot in the streets....of NYC.
The only thing that stemmed the violence in NYC in the late 80's and 90's was vigorous policing, including 1000's of sharp eyed cops swarming through crime-ridden nabes and frisking suspicious lads who exhibited certain behaviour and body language.
Thousands of guns were taken off the streets, and thousands more were secreted back under the beds of the miscreants who owned them for fear of being stopped by cops and arrested.
2605 homicides in 1990
494 in 2007
How many lives were saved?
How many kids grew up without witnessing a "Harlem headshot".
I can remember standing on a street uptown, watching a bunch of kids play and thinking that none of them had witnessed a murder and might even make it to young adulthood without being killed themselves, a though unthinkable even a few years earlier.
Are there abuses? Are there dumb cops? yep.
The alternative is what we are now witnessing in CHicago where Rahm Emannuel had deballed a former NYPD top COmmander and they both stand by mouthing lib platitudes while hundreds are shot in the streets.
Now, the NYPD has been rebuked for its street stops and guess what?
Cawps are now reluctant, hesitant, defensive....and the guns that formerly were under beds have come back out and are readily available when some stupid street beef explodes into violence, in front of kids, women....
it doesnt matter to them.
Win win for you though, Dawgg.
The Constitution and the Bill Of Rights deal with Freedom. That is what I gloat about. I will never trade freedom for so called safety as you lose both.
SAF is racist and the statistic prove it. Moreover, it finds very few guns.
Searching "people likeliest to be gang bangers" isn't racist when those people happen to be, as a matter of practical reality, members of particular races.
The young black guy walking down the block in a suit and tie and carrying a briefcase doesn't get frisked - no matter how dark his skin is. And the young tatted up white kid with the shaved head, saggy shorts, and gold chains will get frisked, no matter how pasty his complexion.
Until we have gun control that's effective the public is going to demand criminal gangs are disarmed. Stop and Frisk is a crappy policy unless you actually deal in the reality that these kids have easy access to weapons and until that flow is stopped there is simply no choice if we are to have a civil society.
The 2nd amendment barred the federal government from regulating guns not the State. The SC recent ruling mean States and Cities can no longer protect themselves through the democratic process. We can either go back to NYC 1970's like Chicago is or continue to disarm these gangs.
Or are you ignoring those facts to suit your argument?
And by "gun control" I assume what you really mean is illegal gun being used illegally control, right? A legal gun being posessed legally does not require Govt. control, does it?
You like statistics? How about the fact that 96% of shooting victims in NYC are Black or Latino?
Where should the police concentrate their efforts? Retreat to the white neighborhoods and "hold the fort" whilst minorities kill eachother?
It would certainly be safer for all these dumb cops who risk their lives for people who hate them.
Also, do you also realize that stop and frisk is not an NYPD "policy" but a practise authorized by the CPL of NYS?
140.50 Temporary questioning of persons in public places; search for
1. In addition to the authority provided by this article for making an
arrest without a warrant, a police officer may stop a person in a public
place located within the geographical area of such officer's employment
when he reasonably suspects that such person is committing, has
committed or is about to commit either (a) a felony or (b) a misdemeanor
defined in the penal law, and may demand of him his name, address and an
explanation of his conduct.
2. Any person who is a peace officer and who provides security
services for any court of the unified court system may stop a person in
or about the courthouse to which he is assigned when he reasonably
suspects that such person is committing, has committed or is about to
commit either (a) a felony or (b) a misdemeanor defined in the penal
law, and may demand of him his name, address and an explanation of his
3. When upon stopping a person under circumstances prescribed in
subdivisions one and two a police officer or court officer, as the case
may be, reasonably suspects that he is in danger of physical injury, he
may search such person for a deadly weapon or any instrument, article or
substance readily capable of causing serious physical injury and of a
sort not ordinarily carried in public places by law-abiding persons. If
he finds such a weapon or instrument, or any other property possession
of which he reasonably believes may constitute the commission of a
crime, he may take it and keep it until the completion of the
questioning, at which time he shall either return it, if lawfully
possessed, or arrest such person.
Not every stop leads to a frisk and not every frisk leads to a weapon.
If an arrest is made, the Cops have to articulate their actions based upon the above statute, if they dont the DA will decline to prosecute.
Do cops go out into the streets in high crime neighborhoods with the provisions of this statute in mind and stop as many people as they can in an effort to locate guns? Yep.
Are high crime hoods in NYC typically minority? Yes!
Is the fact that more minorities get stopped a sign of racism? No
Unless you are a pandering race-baiter hiding behind the Constitution to spew your venom for LE.
Cops go where the crime is.
Just like New York City cannot ban speech. Or Religion. Or voting. or due process. Or right to an attorney. Or equallity under the Law.
Etc, etc, ec.
Legal is what the Constitution says first, what the Feds say second (where appropriate int he first), and what the States say third.
If you said "reasonably regulate" you might have had a defendable point. As such, you have no point, and "Ban" is not "Gun Control", it's killing the patient with a 3,000 pound bunker buster bomb in order to remove a tick from his ass.
It's pointless to debate this tbqh. We literally cannot agree what words mean, we're not going to find agreement on anything of wider import.
You're a tin-pot tyrant, frankly, who wishes to remove ALL our rights, in order to stop a small fraction of peopel who are already law breakers, because lord knows, law breakers would NEVR break the law about guns if guns were simply totally illegal. Thats a proven fact!
Hey, I heard someone once abused speech to incite folsk to violence once. LETS END ALL FREE SPEECH RIGHTS TO FIX THE PROBLEM! Liberal thinking in action. Loathsome and evil is what is what it is.
Logic and Liberty has no place when a Liberal finds something they want to control and dominate in our lives.
Guns are no exception. They're just item #159,135,911 that Liberals demand they get total control over, and we get no rights in regards to. Same as always.
The States have the right to regulate and in the State I live in every resident gets the right to vote. A tin pot tyrant my ass.
The right to free speach as written only pertains to Congress, it's interpretation that extended those rights.
Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 07-12-2012 at 01:41 PM.
You've not shown us any basis for the position that Constitutional Rights can (or should) be banned by a City or State.
Do you take the same position on say, Abortion (a non Constituional right)? Can a State regulate Abortion by banning it completely?
What about protests (speech)? Can a State "regulate" speech by banning all protest activity within it's borders?
What else can be "regulated" via a complete 100% ban, as you see it, yet is also a Constitutional or otherwsie accepted/legislated Right?
Ah, nice to see you leaving open future arguments against the right to speech. Just in case an issue arrises where you want to silence someone elses opinions, I'd suppose.The right to free speach as written only pertains to Congress, it's interpretation that extended those rights.
You're the one making a case that rights can be banned completely as "regulation" as determined by a City council or State legislature.A tin pot tyrant my ass.
I'm the one defending individual liberty, rights and freedoms.
I know which one I see as the wanna-be-Tyrant here. Unless you're going to accuse me of being a Tyrant of Freedom, forcing rights on those who don't want them and prefer to be managed and oppressed by a States 18% voter-turnout elected officals.......
I guess we see the world differently.
You see crime, and want to punish all people for it, the innocent law abiding majority as well as the perpetrator.
I see crime, and want to punish the criminal only. I see the theft of our rights as an even greater and far reaching crime than one worthless scmbag blowing another away with an illegal gun they'd have no matter what the laws or bans or regulations are.
Need an example? Pot was 100% banned for a long while. How'd than "regulation" work out?
Last edited by Warfish; 07-12-2012 at 02:07 PM.
Is it merely a personal rights issue? Why have the militia in there at all?
Is it something in between recognizing the persons rights but in the context of the State Militia?
Doesn't the State have the right to interpret that?
It's not so clear at all. You can come down on this in lots of different ways.
You're the one who argues about Constitutional rights. WTF are they?
The Constitution doesn't protect us from Tyranny it only protects us from what we agree it protects us from.
Individual freedom doesn't exist in a vacuum. People have a right to excersize free will without being assualted or in fear for their lives. That takes balance.
Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 07-12-2012 at 02:56 PM.
I'll ask again, can a State ban abortion, civil rights, voting or speech as a way to "regulate" those things or not Wisnton? No more dodges, answer this direct and sapecific question please.
What other items can be banned as a form of "regulation" that are rights Winston?
And to answer your question, the original intent of the Militia and Right to Bear arms portion are related, but not mutually-co-dependant as your argument makes out. There is a ; in the middle for a reason. Others (i.e. professionals) can explain the minutia of language behind that break, the ;, far better than an average public-educated yokel like I, if you actually wish to educate yourself on it. I doubt you do, but it's out there in e-land if you wish. I won't butcher it by trying to explain it here.
Yes, the right for an individual to bear arms (meaning guns) is a personal rights issue, related to, but not dependant upon, the existence of a State Militia.Is it merely a personal rights issue?
No.Doesn't the State have the right to interpret that?
It can write any Law it wishes, but interpritation is a Suprme Court (or has become a Supreme Court) role in our system, rightly or wrongly.
And you have chosen to come down of "Ban" = "Regulation", a position I reject wholesale, and a position thus far it seems you reserve for only ONE of our rights, conveniently and hypocritically the bigegst right the left wishes to destroy.It's not so clear at all. You can come down on this in lots of different ways.
I am a strong supporter of REAL reasonable regulation of rights, from guns to voting. I am not in favor of what I see as intellectual dishoenst, labeling a total ban as "regulation", which it clearly is not. It's a ban.
A rephrasing of "the living document" theory, eh?The Constitution doesn't protect us from Tyranny it only protects us from what we agree it protects us from.
One dealt with many times here over the years, and I have no taste for it now. Suffice to say, I reject the idea wholesale. If the Constitution has no specific, inherant, meaning based upon the agreed upon meaning of terms at teh time it was written, then it is a meaningless document, and we a lawless baseless nation with a Govt. of unlimited power and authority, made of individuals who have no rights outside what teh State permits at any given moment. I reject that idealogy. It's disgusting to me, as are any who would support it. I can only wish such individuals start having their favored rigths taken away from them.
Liberalism in as concise a way as it can be described.Individual freedom doesn't exist
Collectivism/Society > Individual
Whatever a liberals says is good for all, is what should be.
In this case, a problem exists. Illegal guns used illegally.
Your answer is one I see as Tyrany and the removal of freedom. You ban the right from all, to stop a tiny some.
I cannot find any agreement with thatw ay of thinking Winston. It remains my belief that uyou have no right to take awy mine because of teh actions of others the beloved All-Powerful Govt. is unable to control or refuses to enforce laws against.
Like so many things, I don't agree that I should suffer so others can seek an easy, lazy answer to problems I did not cause and play no part in.