Mock - GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, OR DO THEY?

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212

Hey good news citizens!

NY has passed a gun ban that will make almost all current semi-automatic weapons illegal! This should make everyone very happy, and obviously much safer.

The law also includes registration requirements for long guns that were not subject to registration previously. But that's no big deal, right? I mean what could go wrong there? It's not like a newspaper will ever use FOIA requests to publish that list... that would just be crazy!

Thankfully this law was negotiated behind closed doors, was passed by the state senate in the middle of the night, and the esteemed Gov. Cuomo is going to waive the required 3-day sunshine requirement by signing it immediately! No need to involve the citizens with such small matters!

Such leadership! Cuomo is going to make a great dicta... errr... President someday. People will be so fortunate to have such a dear leader.

Oh yeah, but the criminals get a break as they already have a permanent waiver from this new law.

One more piece of legislation that will only affect law abiding citizens. Way to go, New York.

I'd take a chance & keep my weapon.

You are obviously just a gun nutter.

I mean it couldn't possibly be that you have common sense and believe in the Constitution, could it?

*ETA: and in before someone starts going on about people not 'needing' semi-automatic weapons or 10 round magazines (and isn't it clever how high capacity magazines a month ago were 30 rounds... now it's 10 apparently in NY)

It's called the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs.

I'm sure all the law abiding peasants will be running to register and give up their weapons.

Agreed that it's the Bill of Rights but somebody has to draw a line on the types of arms or we'd all be walking around with RPG's and stuff.

As a non gun owner, I'm sort of apathetic about NY's law. I don't think you can achieve real gun control on a state by state basis though. People just go to neighboring states to get the weapons that they want.

(01-15-2013, 12:26 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ]Agreed that it's the Bill of Rights but somebody has to draw a line on the types of arms or we'd all be walking around with RPG's and stuff.

That's always an interesting argument, but there has long been a delineation between private arms (handguns, rifles, shotguns) and state arms (cannons, tanks, fueled projectiles). State arms have never been on the table in any legitimate 2^nd amendment debate, and are only used for hyperbolic purposes. In other words, saying that the 2^nd amendment can be construed to extend to state arms is a red herring.

(01-15-2013, 12:26 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think you can achieve real gun control on a state by state basis though. People just go to neighboring states to get the weapons that they want.

Actually you can't do that... if it's illegal to own in your state, you can't buy it where it is legal and bring it in.

Moving on to this:

(01-15-2013, 12:26 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ]Agreed that it's the Bill of Rights but...

This is where my problem is with most things these days. Either you have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights, or you don't.

You either have freedom of speech, or you do not. There is no BUT. You either allow those retards from the Phelps church to or the KKK to speak, or you have to limit all speech. Is anyone seriously going to argue for that?

The founders were clear on their intents for anyone willing to go back and read. They left volumes of debate and writing on how they came to the decisions they made, and how things came to be written down and ratified. If you interested in the rationale on the 1^st amendment and what they intended, we don't have to guess about it. It's all still there to be read and understood.

And while you (not you specifically user, I am on a soapbox now) may not care about freedom and gun rights, you should. Because the next time it may not be gun rights and it may be some freedom you do care about that is being threatened.

I am not a gun nut. I am a Constitution nut. I hate those fucking Phelps assholes, but my continued freedom of speech is dependent on their right to continue to be able to speak. So I'll defend their ability to do so, as it is in the best interest of my personal liberty.

The same goes for the 2^nd amendment. It wasn't crafted so citizens could own guns to hunt. It was to protect against foreign - and domestic - tyranny. You either have the right to bear arms that shall not be infringed, or you do not. There is no but.

If the people have an interest in changing the amendment, there was a clearly laid out process for amending. But the rush to subvert the will of the people certainly smacks of political expedience, and not a true desire to solve any real problem.

Weren't the guns used at Sandy Hook "illegal" in Connecticut?

I understand your point, JB.

Lanza's guns were legally owned and registered by his mother.

The Bushmaster is now banned by New York state standards and under Feinstein's federal proposal. I'm not sure if the other two guns he had in tow are on the ban list.

Today's the day that Biden is supposed to submit his federal multi-agency gun violence reduction proposals to Obama. They are expected to include a requirement for universal background checks, a push on state/local officials to report mental illness to the Fed, and to be similar to the New York state gun ban (but I think NY state caps magazines at 7 bullets and the federal cap is 10).

http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/20...n/1829983/

I've read that the weapon used at Sandy Hook was a Bushmaster .223. This is how it looks & sounds.

I have to admit I'm happy about the latest developments.

Smiley_emoticons_smile

(01-15-2013, 02:52 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]I have to admit I'm happy about the latest developments.

I support the proposed universal background checks, stricter requirements on state and local authorities to feed info into the NICS database, and harsher punishments for straw purchasers (as were used in the case NY firefighter ambush and Columbine cases). I think those can help keep the guns out of some of the wrong hands (these means of stricter controls are forecasted to be passed via "executive action or order" rather than Congress). The Virginia Tech shooter had been declared mentally ill by a state judge, but wasn't in the database and was therefore able to legally buy his gun.

I would like to see a public awareness campaign launched; that could do the most good, in my opinion. We don't know about Lanza yet but Gifford's shooter, the Columbine shooters, and almost all other mass murderers who've been studied had drawn out plans and details which they shared or hinted about to others, but others didn't know what to do or didn't take it seriously enough. Create and plaster the warning signs and reporting protocols all over the internet, university campuses, etc...

In Columbine, a friend who'd been threatened by one of the killers reported it to his mother who informed LE. LE checked social media and verified the threats, drafted a search affidavit for the killer's house (where detailed journals and plans of the massacre were located), but the affidavit was never filed. There's enough known about these kinds of killers and their patterns that it could go a long way if members of the public were informed on what to look for and how to report it, and if there were consistent guidelines for law enforcement follow-up. It could mean more LE staffing, but if the goal is to reduce violence/deaths at the hands of mass murderers, I hope that new control proposals include a focus on awareness and prevention. Haven't read anything suggesting that Biden or Feinstein have proposed such a campaign, but I hope it's part of their plans.

ETA: I also think that certified teachers should be able to conceal carry on campus, if they choose.

(01-15-2013, 11:33 AM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]

One more piece of legislation that will only affect law abiding citizens. Way to go, New York.

I'd take a chance & keep my weapon.

So, do you own any machine guns? Are you ready to slaughter the groves as they advance on your property with evil intent?

Ya'll going to just cut them all down with a rat-a-tat-tat?

Very few people have machine guns. It requires a special license that the ATF does not readily give out.

Other than those select few get the license, machine guns can't be purchased.

Unless of course you are a criminal with one of the permanent waivers from the law.

(01-15-2013, 04:53 PM)Adub Wrote: [ -> ]So, do you own any machine guns? Are you ready to slaughter the groves as they advance on your property with evil intent?

Ya'll going to just cut them all down with a rat-a-tat-tat?

I'd say whatever I had to in order to get you up off your lackadaisical ass and start posting.

I'd like to cut anyone down with a rat-a-tat-tat who trespassed onto my property. Uninvited people pull up and start fishing in my pond, hunting in the woods and riding golfcarts filled with their grandchildren who think this is a gawddamn tourist destination. WTF. I wouldn't dream of going onto someone's property like that.

(01-15-2013, 03:32 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-15-2013, 02:52 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]I have to admit I'm happy about the latest developments.

I support the proposed universal background checks, stricter requirements on state and local authorities to feed info into the NICS database, and harsher punishments for straw purchasers (as were used in the case NY firefighter ambush and Columbine cases). I think those can help keep the guns out of some of the wrong hands (these means of stricter controls are forecasted to be passed via "executive action or order" rather than Congress). The Virginia Tech shooter had been declared mentally ill by a state judge, but wasn't in the database and was therefore able to legally buy his gun.

I would like to see a public awareness campaign launched; that could do the most good, in my opinion. We don't know about Lanza yet but Gifford's shooter, the Columbine shooters, and almost all other mass murderers who've been studied had drawn out plans and details which they shared or hinted about to others, but others didn't know what to do or didn't take it seriously enough. Create and plaster the warning signs and reporting protocols all over the internet, university campuses, etc...

In Columbine, a friend who'd been threatened by one of the killers reported it to his mother who informed LE. LE checked social media and verified the threats, drafted a search affidavit for the killer's house (where detailed journals and plans of the massacre were located), but the affidavit was never filed. There's enough known about these kinds of killers and their patterns that it could go a long way if members of the public were informed on what to look for and how to report it, and if there were consistent guidelines for law enforcement follow-up. It could mean more LE staffing, but if the goal is to reduce violence/deaths at the hands of mass murderers, I hope that new control proposals include a focus on awareness and prevention. Haven't read anything suggesting that Biden or Feinstein have proposed such a campaign, but I hope it's part of their plans.

ETA: I also think that certified teachers should be able to conceal carry on campus, if they choose.

I wish even ¹⁄₃ of our legislators thought that way.

(01-15-2013, 04:53 PM)Adub Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-15-2013, 11:33 AM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]

One more piece of legislation that will only affect law abiding citizens. Way to go, New York.

I'd take a chance & keep my weapon.

So, do you own any machine guns? Are you ready to slaughter the groves as they advance on your property with evil intent?

Ya'll going to just cut them all down with a rat-a-tat-tat?

You sound just like a Senator from Illinois. hah

It would appear pyrrhic victory is acceptable to some at the cost of personal freedom and liberty.

But if these laws save one life, that is enough, yes?

Reason and common sense have died. Hysteria and crisis are the new norms.

(01-15-2013, 09:26 PM)Jimbone Wrote: [ -> ]It would appear pyrrhic victory is acceptable to some at the cost of personal freedom and liberty.

But if these laws save one life, that is enough, yes?

Reason and common sense have died. Hysteria and crisis are the new norms.

What laws are you talking about? The New York state laws? The proposed federal laws?

Do you object to the universal background checks, the stricter enforcement of laws against straw purchases, and better coordination between federal, local, and state authorities? I can support those areas of the proposed new laws.

I don't understand why facilitation of greater public awareness, education and prevention don't seem to be addressed by anyone, but could be that it's in the proposals and just hasn't been emphasized in the media (I'm wishful thinking here because I gotta believe that if I'm thinking how much can be done through common sense without legislation, others must be too). This would be something that could not only minimize gun violence, but any type of planned violent attack.

Anyway, I get the sense that you're vehement objection is limited to the banning certain gun types, and possibly the magazine caps and universal registration requirements?

One thing to keep in mind, even using executive order/action to push through some of the proposed new control measures (mostly on the administrative side), there will be a lot that must go through Congress. It's gonna be a tougher fight for Obama to get all of his proposals approved by the federal congress than it was for Cuomo to do so on a state level; Obama will likely have to compromise and negotiate down. Its not an all or nothing package.

I agree with better background checks, I'm a bit leary of registration of longarms and pistols, that just allows for implementation of confiscation. I would rather see a background check card issued that allows a person cleared to buy any gun they want in any amount. There is nothing wrong with taking your guns out to practice at a shooting range or their own property, if they have the ability. It is the gun shy that have a knee jerk philosophy against the big boom that is hovering around this country that are trying to speak for the 90% that have guns legally. It can be done. But do not chip away at my constitution.

(01-15-2013, 10:34 PM)Maggot Wrote: [ -> ]I agree with better background checks, I'm a bit leary of registration of longarms and pistols, that just allows for implementation of confiscation. I would rather see a background check card issued that allows a person cleared to buy any gun they want in any amount. There is nothing wrong with taking your guns out to practice at a shooting range or their own property, if they have the ability. It is the gun shy that have a knee jerk philosophy against the big boom that is hovering around this country that are trying to speak for the 90% that have guns legally. It can be done. But do not chip away at my constitution.

I like the idea of the background check card; never seen that proposed before.

I also think it makes little sense to have a database that is so incomplete with no real compliance enforcement regarding reporting of mental illness. I understand the challenges in getting that sensitive information from so many different sources, but I think that's a worthwhile area of focus at the federal level (as is setting the standard for cracking down on straw purchasers) that could help minimize gun violence.

Guns don't scare me; scary people holding guns (or knives, or overwhelming desires to hurt/kill others for whatever reason using whatever weapons) do.