Retiree That Legally Defended Himself Sentenced to Prison in New York

[PorkChop96]

Is that what you think was happening here?

That is exactly what happens with all taxes that have connections with a Constitutional Right. If you are charged a tax so that you can partake in that right, it is a ransom on your rights.  If you try to spin it any other way you are wrong. 

Same if you had to pay a $200 tax for every cell phone you ever bought, $200 tax every time you went to vote, $200 tax every Sunday to go to church, etc. And if you refuse to pay that tax, you are not allowed to buy the phone, go to church, vote, etc. 

All taxation is theft, but that is a rant for a different time.

[Moon68]

Is that what you think was happening here?

Yep.

Please, oh foreigner, enlighten us dumb American hillbilly's how a few States registration "requirements" are not a poll tax on our Constitutional 2A rights.

[chr0naut]

Sounds like a collector to me.

Your assumptions belie your bias.

No, it was someone with a psychological problem stockpiling weapons, they were not accumulated for public display.

[Moon68]

No, it was someone with a psychological problem stockpiling weapons, they were not accumulated for public display.

Collecting doesn't have to be for public display.

How'd you come with that diagnoses [insult removed]?





mod edit

[BeyondKnowledge]

No, it was someone with a psychological problem stockpiling weapons, they were not accumulated for public display.

So, noone is allowed to have private collections now? Tell that to all the rich people that have collections of various things. Art, cars, houses, etc...

[erbdds]

By any standard, it was a massive cache of weapons.  No?

No... In most rural areas, he would be considered an 'amateur' collector, with a starter collection of arms. Fully protected by the 2nd.

[chr0naut]

Yep.

Please, oh foreigner, enlighten us dumb American hillbilly's how a few States registration "requirements" are not a poll tax on our Constitutional 2A rights.

The very second statute ever written for the USA was one encouraging armed revolt against your own government.

It hasn't been protective, either, because since it was penned, you have had a civil war, and numerous armed revolts have been put down by superior government forces (Waco, Ruby Ridge) and even this year the total death toll from firearms (including suicides), again exceeds that of any other country.

So, from a very dubious starting point, Federally, it's a bit harsh to judge the States, whose authority pre-existed the Union, and the Congress, and by whose assent the Union and the Congress were granted their power.

Amdt10.3.4 State Sovereignty and the Tenth Amendment

[chr0naut]

That is exactly what happens with all taxes that have connections with a Constitutional Right.

What exactly is a 'connection' with a Constitutional right?

How thin and tenuous can it be stretched?

Already the Constitution is confusingly and ambiguously phrased.

Definitely the 2nd makes no specific mention of the general public being armed, it is clearly talking about arming of militias and yet it is interpreted as meaning something it does not explicitly say.

If you are charged a tax so that you can partake in that right, it is a ransom on your rights.  If you try to spin it any other way you are wrong. 

Same if you had to pay a $200 tax for every cell phone you ever bought, $200 tax every time you went to vote, $200 tax every Sunday to go to church, etc. And if you refuse to pay that tax, you are not allowed to buy the phone, go to church, vote, etc. 

All taxation is theft, but that is a rant for a different time.

Does the 2nd Amendment say that the general public has a right to be armed? If so, why not just say it with absolute clarity?

Why all that other stuff about the necessity of militias to a free state? Do you just ignore that contextual stuff in exactly the same clause? Here's a concept, perhaps clauses used in law in the English language, tie together definitions and specific conditions?

And, of course there are the explanations, expansions and clarifications mentioned in the Federalist Papers by the original authors. We shouldn't ignore those either.

[quintessentone]

The very second statute ever written for the USA was one encouraging armed revolt against your own government.

It hasn't been protective, either, because since it was penned, you have had a civil war, and numerous armed revolts have been put down by superior government forces (Waco, Ruby Ridge) and even this year the total death toll from firearms (including suicides), again exceeds that of any other country.

So, from a very dubious starting point, Federally, it's a bit harsh to judge the States, whose authority pre-existed the Union, and the Congress, and by whose assent the Union and the Congress were granted their power.

Amdt10.3.4 State Sovereignty and the Tenth Amendment

The American experience is unique, in that, ingrained perhaps within their history and subsequent evolving culture is the sovereign citizen mentality of freedom of action of self protection. I'm really not sure how to describe it exactly.

[chr0naut]

Collecting doesn't have to be for public display.

How'd you come with that diagnoses Dr. Dumbass?

From the additional verifiable details mentioned in news reports.

Man who shot NYC mugger arraigned on multiple gun charges, held on $50K bail

Several people associated with the case have suggested that the shooter was displaying signs of paranoia, which, in a situation where there is inadequate valid cause for fear, is a description of a psychological imbalance.