NYC Concealed Carry vs Texas Abortion Law
Wondering what you guys think of the NYC concealed carry laws vs the Texas abortion law that's been in the news.
Many people either believe that NYC shouldn't have concealed carry and that the Texas law is unjust while many others believe the Texas law is very good and NYC's concealed carry restrictions are unconstitutional.
For those of you who don't know, NYC basically will not give you a concealed carry permit unless you are a celeb. They require a good reason which basically requires you be famous.
Personally, I am a Constitutionalist, so I believe that the NYC law is super unconstitutional, yet despite my personal opinions on abortion, I also believe the Texas law is super unconstitutional.
Seems like very few people share my same opinion on both topics, so I was wondering what you guys thought.
New York's gun laws are bullshit and abortion is such a nonissue in the grand scheme of things given how few people they actually apply to. That said, abortion probably did save America from having about 30 million more crack addicts so maybe that's a plus?
Regardless, both gun laws and abortion laws are very easy to flout with minimal effort.
There are roughly a million abortions at year in the USA.
Well, didn't save us from you....
Also, your answer basically ignores the view of the other side of the debate. If we are talking about ending human lives, it is certainly not a "nonissue". Only the Left believes, it's a nonissue but you have to recognize that in the point of view of the other side, it is a HUGE issue comparable to issues like slavery.
What I find sad is not that you disagree but that you can't even recognize the other side's point of view on the subject. We should at the very least understand each others arguments even if we don't agree with them.
I recognize that fetuses are human lives. It's just disingenuous to care. Both sides of the aisle have utilitarian and moral justifications for homicide in certain contexts (i.e. right to self-defense, police shootings, or extrajudicial murder by federal agents).
Here’s some constitutional theory to remove confusion for you. Saying something is constitutional or unconstitutional is a rhetorical bludgeon, whether in reference to the Constitution’s text or precedent. Whatever judges permit is constitutional, whatever they strike down is unconstitutional. Until you are ready to go Andrew Jackson and defy the Supreme Court (if you think they overstep their authority or are erroneous too often, maybe the legislature or president should step up), you go along with them.
Based Andy J
You realize he ignored the Supreme Court so he could do the trail of tears right? Not based
I'm a huge 2nd Amendment supporter; it's probably my top political cause (I was an NRA member at...14(?)). However, I'm in the camp that couldn't care less about concealed carry laws and even handgun regulation. I firmly believe that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure a last, final check against an out-of-control or otherwise tyrannical government. Handguns are a pretty crappy weapon in a military conflict; rifles are kind of the bare minimum weapon required for an extended guerilla conflict against the government.
A rational gun control policy seeking to reduce gun violence is almost exclusively focused on handguns since the overwhelming majority (like, 90+%) of gun crimes are with handguns while an irrational gun control policy is obsessed with the optics of mass shootings (in spite of their rarity) and is obsessed with the scary looks of rifles, despite their rarity of use in crimes.
From a true 2nd Amendment perspective, if your state is out of control in its despotism you can move to another state (a far better solution than open warfare), so state gun control laws are not of great consequence so long as there is a large contingent of states that allow for prolific rifle and rifle ammunition availability (which in the U.S. will be true for generations to come). The problem really only arises if the federal government is out of control in its despotism, at which point people need to have access to weaponry that could be effective in an extended guerilla conflict. So long as there are significant numbers of states providing significant access to rifles and ammunition, I really couldn't care less about handgun regulation.
This, the use of guns for self defense is pretty laughable, unless you're part of an organized crime group or something. The chances of dying in a home invasion/robbery is far far lower than the chances of your gun being used in suicide or domestic violence. Studies have shown this over and over again and if you want to figure it out on your own look at who's dying from guns in this country and why. My family owns a gun for shooting sports, and support because of the right to bear arms. But I don't want a certain crazy Russian girl shooting me in the balls for looking at thots on Instagram
"The Gun Lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies – the militia – would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires." – Warren Burger, Conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice
And this is why we refer to people like you as "limousine liberals". Yeah in your grad school dorm you'll be safe because there are ARMED police constantly patrolling campus. When you get a job I'm sure you'll sign a lease at an apartment with 24 hour security and a doorman. Why? Because you want to be safe, but for some strange reason you don't want other people to be safe. Poor neighborhoods have been shown to have worse response times repeatedly compared to wealthier neighborhoods.
https://www.aclu-il.org/en/press-releases/newly-released-data-shows-cit…
- expand -
Think about that. Someone is attempting to rob your house and or physically assaulting you on the street in an area that is already relatively dangerous due to gang violence and you may have to wait 10 minutes for the police to show up. And this is just for inner city neighborhoods. I would imagine farmlands in a rural area face similar challenges in immediate response time. Having weapons to defend yourself is critical in these cases.
To your other point why is dying from a robbery the cutoff for crime now? What about actually being robbed but not dying, rape, assault, battery ,etc. I mean I'm confident very little if any crime has ever happened to you as you speak from an ivory tower, but at least realize that these are life-changing events that shouldn't be allowed to take place.
Gang violence, domestic violence cases, etc. are tragic no doubt. But you're acting like these rich gangs and criminals won't get access to guns if guns are illegal. I hope you're aware that drugs dealers and drug lords have been around for a long, long time carrying illegal drugs through the black market. The only thing gun control does is take guns from law abiding citizens. It's not going to take it away from those who are willing to get them illegally. So yeah, giving more power to the criminals is definitely the smart route in public safety.
Um... sounds like a personal problem. Not too sure how to respond here but best of luck...
You know that the number of defensive use of handguns events is estimated to be more than a million times per year on a conservative basis in this country? Or does your knowledge of this subject extend only to the Brady Campaigns propaganda?
It looks that WSO does not like logic but you are right. The self defense argument for an individual is reasonable when argued from a constitutional perspective. However, common sense tells you that owning a gun for self defense makes little sense. The bad guys are not accessing your house in the middle of the day while your gun is on your hip. I could be wrong but I would think that home intrusions are more likely to occur at night when you are sleeping and presumably your gun is locked away. How are you going to protect yourself in the situation in which the intruder has a gun ready to go.
The worst part about gun ownership argument is how if affects married women, who are way more likely to be murdered by their spouse with a gun than by an intruder. With all due respect to your parents, I am not even in favor of using guns for sport. I really do not understand why people feel proud when they shoot an animal. The only rational reason I can see for owning a gun would be for protection for small business owners and for food.
Let's take a step back. The fact that citizens are armed in and of itself deters crime. When a would-be criminal knows that the house they're breaking into may easily have an occupant with a handgun (maybe even an AR), the entire game completely changes. You now know that you very well may be shot and killed. This won't stop the die hards who would have committed the crime either way, but it's an enormous deterrent to everyone else.
"The gun lobby"
Yeah...that's the lobby we should be worried about
Stupid as usual.
CDC Study: Use of Firearms for Self-Defense is ‘Important Crime Deterrent’
So the use of guns for self defense is anywhere from 5x-30x the rate of firearm injuries and deaths (which includes the nearly 2/3 of deaths which are suicides) and this only accounts for the reported instances of defensive use. Additionally, the former 100k figure includes incidents where the person injured or killed was in the act of perpetrating a crime (i.e. it was a defensive gun use either by police officers or private citizen). The 500k-3mm figure does not account for instances such a drawing your gun on an attacker and them choosing to flee (which is likely even more common than actually firing the gun), because you did not technically "use" the firearm and have nothing to report to authorities. The US has the most private gun ownership in the world by more than 10 orders of magnitude and our gun murder rates barely crack the top 20 and overall homicide rates barely crack the top 100. More people are killed by hands and feet than rifles which are the most commonly targeted firearms by regulation. The only reason we even rank highly on firearm-related death is because of the rate of suicide, which is a mental health issue not a gun issue. Similarly to how the homelessness problem is largely not a poverty issue, it is a mental health issue.
I couldn't have related or said it better.
Didn’t it turn out the NRA was a huge scam? Lol
The U.S. government has the ability to drone strike people off the planet from 1,000 miles away - do you truly believe there is any firearm you can own that will stave off a tyrannical government? I get why this language was used in the 1700s when our founders couldn't imagine the existence of a toaster oven, much less an automatic weapon, but the standard, uncompromising, "I dont care how many kids die in school shootings cause it's our right" arguments are pathetically hiding behind a 250 year-old document while refusing to acknowledge the crisis that has created in present day America.
The U.S. government has been "defeated" (in effect) multiple times by guerilla fighters with far inferior weaponry. The Taliban is the latest example of that; the Vietcong is the most famous example of that. Guerilla resistance does not require that the resistance defeat the superior force and make it surrender; it just requires the ability to make the cost of victory too high for the superior force to endure. As a matter of simple logic, drone striking a few buildings is not going to put down a resistance of 5 or 10 million armed individuals. A group of people 500,000 strong armed with rifles could overwhelm the military and political apparatus of the United States in quick order. The U.S. military is tailor-made for conflict between nation-states, but its superior weaponry (F-35s, nuclear weapons, tanks, Apache helicopters, etc.) are largely useless in a close, street-to-street armed conflict on its own territory. If the U.S. military starts destroying its own cities with aerial strikes they will end up killing their own supporters, too. The political and financial mess of dealing with an armed rebellion is a genuine concern.
I love this response. It is litterally the dumbest possible response one could make. How are you this dim?
And they also missed the target in the most recent debacle... Despite all this drones like most high-grade military equipment is very expensive. If the government is looking to take out one or two criticizers, than that definitely is possible provided they can actually get the target correct. It's much more complicated if the dissenters are scattered across the country in various cities. It is extremely difficult to accurately implement what you are proposing with limited resources compared to just having the local gestapo come in and say confiscate and slaughter people of a certain ethnicity.
People that want to get guns illegally will get them illegally through gangs and the black market. This happens with drugs, prostitutes, and other services/commodities that the state rule as illegal all the time. You're not going to materially stop shootings from taking place. You are however, going to stop innocent law abiding civilians from shooting the active shooter making the situation worse.
The Taliban and Viet Cong prove you wrong.
Also, legal gun owners commit less gun-related crime than the general population.
*laughs in Pashto and Vietnamese*
If you want the truest depiction of why I'm an actual leftist and the rest of the people you dump on are neoliberals, look no further. I wholehearted believe in the right of the US citizenry to have access to firearms, regardless of actual service in a militia. As financeabc pointed out, the 2nd Amendment reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." The well-regulated militia is presented as a justification for why the arms provision exists within the Constitution, but it is not listed as a requirement before bearing arms. That's why the Supreme Court correctly found in District of Columbia v. Heller that people have the right to use firearms for lawful uses independent of actual militia service.
The abortion law is especially brutal, and seems to specifically target poor people. Rich women can easily travel to other states, etc.
I kind of like the NYC law because the city is at least trying to tackle gun violence. The law certainly isn’t perfect, but I’ve read it’s very hard to carry a gun in the city and if you’re caught the law is quite stern.
Anything that gets guns off the streets is a good step in my view. And the cool thing about America is that if you’re obsessed with guns you can always move to a state like Texas.
Wow, such twisted logic. Laws designed to prevent the killing of children disproportionately prevent the killing of poor children, so you define that as "brutal" and "targeting the poor." That's truly Orwellian language.
What a stupid straw man comment. Somehow twisting his words to make it sound like he wants to kill more poor children? Lmfao.
I was born and raised in Texas, and chose to go to a university in a different state because of Texas' abortion/reproductive health policy getting worse and worse since 2013. I will never, ever move back until I'm sure I could freely access an abortion. Even though I have the money to travel out-of-state to receive abortion services, I've heard horror stories from older family members of deliberate sabotage of travel plans.
Fuck this policy. It's hurting millions.
Honest question: at what point in the pregnancy should abortion be illegal and considered murder? Presumably, moments before birth rational people could agree that killing the fetus is murder. Could you roll back the clock to the date at which removing the fetus is akin to removing a tumor?
If you're asking my personal take, I wouldn't be comfortable receiving an abortion once the fetus reaches the point of viability, which at the US level of care is at about 26 weeks. Fetuses only have about a 25% chance of death if delivered at that point. However, only 1% of all abortions occur after even 21 weeks, and that very sad 1% usually has to do with a life-threatening condition of the fetus or the mother.
Speaking from a policy perspective, I think it's important that abortion should be legal up to the point of birth for the reason mentioned before--any woman who's carried a fetus for that long (six and a half to nine months) doesn't want the abortion if she can help it, she wants her child. "Abortions" that happen "moments before birth" are actually usually the delivery of fetuses that are dying or already dead--actual abortions can't and don't happen that soon before birth. That's simply forced-birth propaganda. Murder is murder once the child has been born.
I really enjoy talking about reproductive policy and the statistics of abortion, so I'd love to continue talking if you're interested.
Are you a female? Just curious
She said she wouldn't move back until she could freely access an abortion so yes she's female.
I also think it's why practically every other guy avoided getting into an argument or just threw a soft teaser question.
Crazy what lengths guys will go to try to impress/not irritate a girl even on an anonymous forum lol.
Yes, I am.
It's not a great comparison to make and I think we can fairly parse out why but I'm open to hearing a well-reasoned argument otherwise. Lets establish an agreement that law itself is not objective and is often not clear (although sometimes it is very clear). This is why there are judges who have to interpret the law. Judges are people and they have biases based on their own beliefs which in turn effect those interpretations, otherwise there wouldn't have been such massive campaigns against conservative judges by liberals and vice versa when it comes to Federal/SCOTUS appointments. If the law were clear we wouldn't need lawyers to create compelling arguments for why their client's case was unique and that they should not receive punishment for X action.
The key aspect of the Texas abortion law is that the people passing it genuinely believe that abortion is murder. It is ending what will be, uninterrupted and barring a miscarriage, a human life being born. That idea is the fundamental disagreement between "pro-life" and "pro-choice" crowds. The former is arguing you're killing a person and the latter is saying it's just a clump of cells (but never seem to be able to articulate exactly when it becomes a person other then after being born).
The pro-life argument of it being a person is in my opinion reasonably supported in legal precedent by any instance where a pregnant woman has been injured or killed, losing the baby as a result, and the person perpetuating the injury/death is charged with a double homicide, manslaughter, etc. That is the law recognizing that the death of the unborn baby is on par with the death of a person who has been born and dolling out a penalty representative of that fact. This is a glaring issue that is never really rectified in any of these discussions when they're brought up. The pro-choice side will avoid addressing it and focus in on saying that it's an issue of bodily autonomy, that the woman should not be forced to give up her body to someone else.
Pro-choice groups will cite the rape/incest example as though it's a common occurrence when it has been widely established that rape/incest is only accounts for ~1% of the cases for abortion. The other cases are most often due to accidental pregnancy (i.e. it's inconvenient for the mother) or a change of heart (no longer wanting to be a mom). It's a crime to kill someone (after they've been born) whether it was an accident/they're inconvenient for your lifestyle or because you no longer want to be a parent (infanticide), so the pro-life side does not recognize these as being valid reasons to take action to, what is in their eyes, kill a child. Then there's the moral argument of rape/incest circumstance where it wasn't the baby's choice to be conceived in that manner so how does it make sense to kill them for it? I've stated in other threads that I recognize that's a particularly grey area no one is very happy with, and while I personally would prefer to err on the side of protecting an innocent life and having the mother just put them up for an adoption, I would understand and accept any inclusion of an exception to an abortion law that allows them in such a circumstance. And of course there should be no ban on abortions where the mother's health is at risk, that would absurd.
The second amendment on the other hand is quite clear.
One thing people get wrong about law when looking at old text is trying to apply modern definitions to them to imply intent. People will get hung up on the term "regulated" and try to say that it means it is only under the government's authority that these militias can/should exist, but that's simply not the case. This has been written not simply as a law of the land but enshrined as a recognition of a fundamental right of the people, it is not some privilege for the government to bestow on certain individuals it deems worthy but a God-given right for all free men. Personally I argue that felons who have served their time and are now free should also be able to own firearms, as they are often living in poorer areas where the need for self-defense is greater and a responsive police presence is often rarer, but this is a separate discussion. Militias could be formed for any region as small as a neighborhood up to and including for an entire state themselves, and the purpose of the 2nd amendment was both to protect your space both from external invaders and corruption of your own government (see The Battle of Athens). But moving on from that, the rest of the text is quite clear (such a rare thing in law these days) as "shall not be infringed" does not leave open any interpretation about "well these gun laws are ok because X." It very clearly says shall not be infringed. Any law designed to ban a particular firearm is an infringement. Any tax is in fact designed to keep poor people unarmed (historically these taxes were designed specifically to prevent minorities from being able to access guns).
And to those trying to say "yUo CaRe AbOuT gUnS mOrE tHaN wOmEn'S rIgHtS," do yourself a favor and don't be this person.
This person wants women to be:
I grew up in a town that had an extremely high murder rate - top 10 in the country, and I was just outside of it on a farm. We used to have drug dealers come onto our property to do deals. We would chase them away with shotguns.
I now live in a rougher neighborhood in a city, and we frequently have break in attempts. I have a big Great Dane and just let him deal with it. We had people try to break in last week, and I just said you better run or the dog is coming after you. Have had that happen several times. I could grab a gun, but a big dog works way better with lower personal risk.
Do Great Danes make good guard dogs, I know they were bred as hunting dogs in the past. Generally curious
I grew up with Doberman and Mastiffs which are also territorial. The Doberman would work in coordination with one another, which was cool but not something to be on the wrong side of. The Mastiffs were so big that they just stand up and stare at you, which is enough because they are huge. My Great Dane goes ballistic and puts his feet up above the door to bark at anyone on our porch. He's like 8 feet tall when he stands on his hind legs and basically sounds like a bear. There's no reason to mess with that. All in, a group of Doberman are the scariest to me because they work together. The Danes are very good guard dogs and based on sheer size and volume of their bark would be tough to mess with as an intruder.
Perspiciatis non mollitia unde architecto porro. Repellat aspernatur totam atque explicabo rerum numquam dolor. Qui nihil sunt non autem aut. Facere inventore possimus voluptatibus aut eos exercitationem iusto.
Placeat molestiae officia ut aut ducimus earum tempore. Et est consequatur nihil asperiores. Quos eos aspernatur consequatur. Ex qui officia itaque autem. Asperiores explicabo officia natus asperiores voluptas cupiditate voluptas. Et dolores maxime omnis tenetur rem est reiciendis.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Aut quasi itaque vero. Cumque et repellendus reprehenderit nihil assumenda quia eum.
Fugiat placeat deserunt eos laboriosam. Eligendi occaecati impedit adipisci. Doloribus atque fugiat ducimus ex praesentium voluptatem. Nesciunt nulla magni veritatis vel autem est voluptate. Hic blanditiis est in aperiam incidunt maiores. Labore molestiae molestias dignissimos accusamus. Dolores nihil illum est et et hic aut nobis.
Illum voluptatibus beatae sapiente atque. Adipisci a sunt aliquam voluptatem dolor. Cumque voluptatum minima adipisci nisi. Aspernatur corporis est aperiam pariatur quia libero fugit eum. Recusandae maiores consequuntur saepe aperiam impedit non temporibus dolor. Et non est molestiae eveniet veniam id et.
Tempore cupiditate at rerum pariatur sapiente alias. Est autem quam mollitia dolorum doloribus est. Voluptatem quos aut voluptatem ut.