If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New York Senate)   The actual new & crazy legislation from NYS. Fark might have to create a New York tag   (open.nysenate.gov) divider line 231
    More: Asinine, New York, aggravated murder, order of protection, for sale by owner, revocations, minimum sentence, third degree, registered owner  
•       •       •

3610 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Jan 2013 at 1:44 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



231 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-15 05:40:32 PM

Blues_X: HotWingConspiracy: Can someone bottom line this for me - will I still be able to kill my friends and neighbors when I've decided they're tyrannical?

Yes... but you'll have to reload after seven shots instead of ten.


So you're saying if he loaded his clips with ten shots and then killed his friends/neighbors he'd probably get in trouble.

Man, this law sucks.
 
2013-01-15 05:46:41 PM

ReluctantPaladin: Obviously the streets of the Czech Republic aren't being choked with the blood of innocents, even though they have a liberal (compared to Canada) attitude. So culture has to have SOMETHING to do with it.


True. Of course, if you look at gun-related homicides in the US outside of certain "hotspots" (almost always involving drug trafficking and gangs), the rates are similar to those of other developed nations -- it's that these hotspots contribute disproportionately to the violent crime rate overall. Take, for example, New Hampshire: with 0.53 firearm-related homicides per 100,000 people it has a rate lower than Luxembourg (0.60) and essentially comparable to Switzerland (0.52). There's lots of useful information at those two links.

Overall, gun-related deaths in the US are not due to ordinary gun owners (though there's no doubt some deaths related to such people), but seems primarily driven by drug/gang-related violence. Reducing those issues are likely to have more of an effect than Czech-style licensing (though the Czech system is fairly reasonable overall).

Of course if people on both sides of the debate would stop fulfilling these cairactures, then your chances of a rational discussion would improve.

Seconded.
 
2013-01-15 05:50:36 PM
Wait, wait -- We're allowed to own guns?

/NYC resident
 
2013-01-15 05:51:31 PM

heypete: ReluctantPaladin: Obviously the streets of the Czech Republic aren't being choked with the blood of innocents, even though they have a liberal (compared to Canada) attitude. So culture has to have SOMETHING to do with it.

True. Of course, if you look at gun-related homicides in the US outside of certain "hotspots" (almost always involving drug trafficking and gangs), the rates are similar to those of other developed nations -- it's that these hotspots contribute disproportionately to the violent crime rate overall. Take, for example, New Hampshire: with 0.53 firearm-related homicides per 100,000 people it has a rate lower than Luxembourg (0.60) and essentially comparable to Switzerland (0.52). There's lots of useful information at those two links.

Overall, gun-related deaths in the US are not due to ordinary gun owners (though there's no doubt some deaths related to such people), but seems primarily driven by drug/gang-related violence. Reducing those issues are likely to have more of an effect than Czech-style licensing (though the Czech system is fairly reasonable overall).

Of course if people on both sides of the debate would stop fulfilling these cairactures, then your chances of a rational discussion would improve.

Seconded.


Perhaps we should declare war on drugs and gangs.  I have a feeling that more laws and police/military involvment will solve the problem.
 
2013-01-15 05:56:22 PM
God bless Andrew Cuomo.

Fark the NRA and the gun nuts.

/NYer
 
2013-01-15 05:58:18 PM

MetaCarpal: Wait, wait -- We're allowed to own guns?

/NYC resident


www.zuguide.com

"I'm not saying you can't own a gun. Hell, I'm not even saying you can't carry a gun. You just can't carry a gun in town."
 
2013-01-15 06:03:04 PM

Skeptos: God bless Andrew Cuomo.

Fark the NRA and the gun nuts.

/NYer


Hopefully they ban fatty food next.
 
2013-01-15 06:06:17 PM

queezyweezel: Skeptos: God bless Andrew Cuomo.

Fark the NRA and the gun nuts.

/NYer

Hopefully they ban fatty food next.


Well maybe if all the obese people would just die when they had heartattacks instead of piling into the emergency room we wouldn't have that problem.

(Sometimes system clusterfarks call for systemic solutions)
 
2013-01-15 06:10:17 PM
I'll say this about the law. It sure makes it easy to make a messy divorce messier. "My spouse threatens me, come take his/her guns. Oh and don't forget to count the rounds in the magazine."
 
2013-01-15 06:18:47 PM

queezyweezel: Skeptos: God bless Andrew Cuomo.

Fark the NRA and the gun nuts.

/NYer

Hopefully they ban fatty food next.


Or just tax it.
 
2013-01-15 06:31:16 PM
There wasn't a crime problem handled by most of the proposed regulations. The targeted rifles/magazines account for a handful of crimes across the entire state each year.

Statistically there will be no unexpected drop in crime in NY.
 
2013-01-15 06:40:17 PM

Skeptos: queezyweezel: Skeptos: God bless Andrew Cuomo.

Fark the NRA and the gun nuts.

/NYer

Hopefully they ban fatty food next.


When will they close the "Just buy 2 sodas" large soda loophole?
 
2013-01-15 06:42:30 PM

ko_kyi: Skeptos: queezyweezel: Skeptos: God bless Andrew Cuomo.

Fark the NRA and the gun nuts.

/NYer

Hopefully they ban fatty food next.

When will they close the "Just buy 2 sodas" large soda loophole?


Is a 12-pack a "high capacity soda feeding device"?
 
2013-01-15 06:47:52 PM

Blues_X: HotWingConspiracy: Can someone bottom line this for me - will I still be able to kill my friends and neighbors when I've decided they're tyrannical?


Yes... but you'll have to reload after seven shots instead of ten.


Exactly...the first 7 dead can go fark themselves.
 
2013-01-15 06:50:55 PM

queezyweezel: wee: (VI) A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, MUZZLE BREAK, MUZZLE COMPENSATOR, OR THREADED BARREL DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, MUZZLE BREAK, OR MUZZLE COMPENSATOR; Those retards don't even know what the fark a muzzle brake is...

I like the banning of flash suppressors....When in the history of EVER have civilian casualties been limited because the shooter was shooting at night, and people didn't know where the shots were coming from because they couldn't see the muzzle flash?  These kinds of feel-good gun control measures make me spit.


DC Sniper?
 
2013-01-15 06:51:00 PM
There's absolutely nothing wrong with an assault weapon ban. These weapons platforms are totally inappropriate for civilian society based simply on their appearance and their features. Not to mention, theyt're fake military weapons, making them even more egregious. Serious shooters and those with appropriate respect and understanding for guns lose nothing. I have no problem with gun ownership. We all have a serious problem with an ill-formed and irresponsible public using these incredibly dangerous toys. They literally serve no other purpose than to appear to be a combat weapon, and that is not OK in a peacetime society.

A Winchester Model 70 can pierce an armored car. A Mini-14 in 5.56 is a much better game gun(and half the price).Shotguns are better for home defense and sport/casual shooting is better fun and substantially cheaper with .22LR and or real sporting weapons, depending on the amount a shooter wants to invest in the hobby. Handguns are statistically way more dangerous so we won't even see a reduction in gun deaths.

I see no problem banning a weapons platform that has literally no other design purpose than making its owner feel like he is equipped for the battlefield. It is perfectly legitimate to decide as a society that we should ban ersatz military weapons and remove them from our midst. We lose nothing--we regain our civility in some small measure.

Those with legitimate feral hog problems that want to use these quasi-military weapons platforms can be licensed, insured, and subject to special regulations and scrutiny, just like automobiles and trucks.
 
2013-01-15 06:57:47 PM

Zalan: queezyweezel: wee: (VI) A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, MUZZLE BREAK, MUZZLE COMPENSATOR, OR THREADED BARREL DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, MUZZLE BREAK, OR MUZZLE COMPENSATOR; Those retards don't even know what the fark a muzzle brake is...

I like the banning of flash suppressors....When in the history of EVER have civilian casualties been limited because the shooter was shooting at night, and people didn't know where the shots were coming from because they couldn't see the muzzle flash?  These kinds of feel-good gun control measures make me spit.

DC Sniper?


He shot from a hidden location(trunk of car) where the flash wouldn't be seen by anyone with or without a flash suppressor. Flash suppressors don't prevent the flash from being seen either. It reduces it with the primary goal of allowing night vision to not be affected during night time hunting.

So yea, a feature primarily of benefit to hunters has no benefit to hunters. Figure that one out.

As the previous poster said, there hasn't been any killing where a flash suppressor played a vital role in it. Banning them saves zero lives.
 
2013-01-15 07:09:03 PM

willfullyobscure: A Winchester Model 70 can pierce an armored car. A Mini-14 in 5.56 is a much better game gun(and half the price).Shotguns are better for home defense and sport/casual shooting is better fun and substantially cheaper with .22LR and or real sporting weapons, depending on the amount a shooter wants to invest in the hobby.


I'm not 100% sure on this because I haven't read the full text, but doesn't the one-feature criteria also classify a whole set of .22 target pistols like the Walther GSP as "assault weapons", simply because the magazine attaches in front of the grip? A lot of competition pistols have compensators as well, though that's more common in higher calibers.
 
2013-01-15 07:14:19 PM

heypete: BlueDWarrior: So are the lines in a good place, or can we afford to see them moved up some more (I dunno). There is too much cross-talk and I can't get a good handle on the situation.

That's pretty much the opinion of the gun owners I know, myself included. The current laws basically say "full-auto bad, semi-auto ok" and that's been fine for decades.


Actually, that's been fine for about 80 years now.
 
2013-01-15 07:16:56 PM

willfullyobscure: A Mini-14 in 5.56 is a much better game gun(and half the price).


The only differences between a Mini-14 and an AR-15 are cosmetic. They both function the same exact way, shoot the same exact caliber.

Actually, they *ARE* different in one respect: Generally, the AR is much more accurate than the Ruger, so you're more likely to hit the game you are shooting at.
 
2013-01-15 07:19:22 PM

Mrbogey: There wasn't a crime problem handled by most of the proposed regulations. The targeted rifles/magazines account for a handful of crimes across the entire state each year.

Statistically there will be no unexpected drop in crime in NY.


That's not the real point of such legislation. It's about controlling the people.
 
2013-01-15 07:25:17 PM

dittybopper: willfullyobscure: A Mini-14 in 5.56 is a much better game gun(and half the price).

The only differences between a Mini-14 and an AR-15 are cosmetic. They both function the same exact way, shoot the same exact caliber.

Actually, they *ARE* different in one respect: Generally, the AR is much more accurate than the Ruger, so you're more likely to hit the game you are shooting at.


I just let it go. Functionally the AR-15 and the Mini-14 are the same. Most people know this. Anyone who wants to try and differentiate between them isn't going to change their mind.
 
2013-01-15 07:25:50 PM

Skeptos: God bless Andrew Cuomo.

Fark the NRA and the gun nuts.

/NYer


0/10
 
2013-01-15 07:29:06 PM

dittybopper: willfullyobscure: A Mini-14 in 5.56 is a much better game gun(and half the price).

The only differences between a Mini-14 and an AR-15 are cosmetic. They both function the same exact way, shoot the same exact caliber.

Actually, they *ARE* different in one respect: Generally, the AR is much more accurate than the Ruger, so you're more likely to hit the game you are shooting at.


no shiat. I'm saying AR clones should be banned(and forcibly bought back) based on how they look.
 
2013-01-15 07:30:33 PM
willfullyobscure: There's absolutely nothing wrong with an assault weapon ban. These weapons platforms are totally inappropriate for civilian society based simply on their appearance and their features. Not to mention, theyt're fake military weapons, making them even more egregious. Serious shooters and those with appropriate respect and understanding for guns lose nothing. I have no problem with gun ownership. We all have a serious problem with an ill-formed and irresponsible public using these incredibly dangerous toys. They literally serve no other purpose than to appear to be a combat weapon, and that is not OK in a peacetime society.

A Winchester Model 70 can pierce an armored car. A Mini-14 in 5.56 is a much better game gun(and half the price).Shotguns are better for home defense and sport/casual shooting is better fun and substantially cheaper with .22LR and or real sporting weapons, depending on the amount a shooter wants to invest in the hobby. Handguns are statistically way more dangerous so we won't even see a reduction in gun deaths.

I see no problem banning a weapons platform that has literally no other design purpose than making its owner feel like he is equipped for the battlefield. It is perfectly legitimate to decide as a society that we should ban ersatz military weapons and remove them from our midst. We lose nothing--we regain our civility in some small measure.

Those with legitimate feral hog problems that want to use these quasi-military weapons platforms can be licensed, insured, and subject to special regulations and scrutiny, just like automobiles and trucks.



Now that's how you troll.
 
2013-01-15 07:43:38 PM

willfullyobscure: There's absolutely nothing wrong with an assault weapon ban. These weapons platforms are totally inappropriate for civilian society based simply on their appearance and their features. Not to mention, theyt're fake military weapons, making them even more egregious. Serious shooters and those with appropriate respect and understanding for guns lose nothing. I have no problem with gun ownership. We all have a serious problem with an ill-formed and irresponsible public using these incredibly dangerous toys. They literally serve no other purpose than to appear to be a combat weapon, and that is not OK in a peacetime society.

A Winchester Model 70 can pierce an armored car. A Mini-14 in 5.56 is a much better game gun(and half the price).Shotguns are better for home defense and sport/casual shooting is better fun and substantially cheaper with .22LR and or real sporting weapons, depending on the amount a shooter wants to invest in the hobby. Handguns are statistically way more dangerous so we won't even see a reduction in gun deaths.

I see no problem banning a weapons platform that has literally no other design purpose than making its owner feel like he is equipped for the battlefield. It is perfectly legitimate to decide as a society that we should ban ersatz military weapons and remove them from our midst. We lose nothing--we regain our civility in some small measure.

Those with legitimate feral hog problems that want to use these quasi-military weapons platforms can be licensed, insured, and subject to special regulations and scrutiny, just like automobiles and trucks.


I love this post plus I learned a new word.  "ersatz".  I looked it up.  Is it obscure or am I that dumb.
 
2013-01-15 07:52:24 PM

Zalan: queezyweezel: wee: (VI) A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, MUZZLE BREAK, MUZZLE COMPENSATOR, OR THREADED BARREL DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, MUZZLE BREAK, OR MUZZLE COMPENSATOR; Those retards don't even know what the fark a muzzle brake is...

I like the banning of flash suppressors....When in the history of EVER have civilian casualties been limited because the shooter was shooting at night, and people didn't know where the shots were coming from because they couldn't see the muzzle flash?  These kinds of feel-good gun control measures make me spit.

DC Sniper?


Did he use a "sniper rifle"?
 
2013-01-15 07:54:39 PM

willfullyobscure: There's absolutely nothing wrong with an assault weapon ban. These weapons platforms are totally inappropriate for civilian society based simply on their appearance and their features. Not to mention, theyt're fake military weapons, making them even more egregious. Serious shooters and those with appropriate respect and understanding for guns lose nothing. I have no problem with gun ownership. We all have a serious problem with an ill-formed and irresponsible public using these incredibly dangerous toys. They literally serve no other purpose than to appear to be a combat weapon, and that is not OK in a peacetime society.

A Winchester Model 70 can pierce an armored car. A Mini-14 in 5.56 is a much better game gun(and half the price).Shotguns are better for home defense and sport/casual shooting is better fun and substantially cheaper with .22LR and or real sporting weapons, depending on the amount a shooter wants to invest in the hobby. Handguns are statistically way more dangerous so we won't even see a reduction in gun deaths.

I see no problem banning a weapons platform that has literally no other design purpose than making its owner feel like he is equipped for the battlefield. It is perfectly legitimate to decide as a society that we should ban ersatz military weapons and remove them from our midst. We lose nothing--we regain our civility in some small measure.

Those with legitimate feral hog problems that want to use these quasi-military weapons platforms can be licensed, insured, and subject to special regulations and scrutiny, just like automobiles and trucks.


Brilliant. This reads like a gun owner trying to use a progressive's 'logic' concerning an AWB. Poe's Law, troll, whatever. Just brilliant.
 
2013-01-15 07:59:51 PM

mrshowrules: Is it obscure or am I that dumb.


Not knowing ersatz doesn't mean you are dumb. Just that your personal lexicon hasn't reached its apogee. But it's OK. Excessive philology is largely an emollient palliative for intellectual insecurity anyway.
 
2013-01-15 08:13:17 PM

cameroncrazy1984: jst3p: This legislation will protect New Yorkers by reducing the availability
of assault weapons and deterring the criminal use of firearms while
promoting a fair,

Because laws stop people from doing things that are against the law.

So we should have no laws. Better to have no laws than have recourse to prosecute people who do bad things, right?


No... But we shouldn't have stupid, ineffectual laws that punish law abiding citizens while at the same time providing absolutely no benefit and happen to infringe upon an established civil right.

Other than that, your hyperbole was right on, kid.
 
2013-01-15 08:31:28 PM

DGS: Until subby or anyone else can give me lucid points as to why this is crazy, I shall have to insist that any opposition is either deliberate trolling or deliberate fearmongering.

/NYS resident


My handgun comes standard with a 17 round magazine. Under this law, I can't own the gun if I moved to NY. Magazines are capped at a 10 round capacity. I can't even only load it with 7. So, I'd have to sell the gun to a licensed dealer who would only give me pennies on the dollar and then turn around and sell it out of state for closer to its actual value.

This law makes as much sense as NYCs pop ban.
 
2013-01-15 08:33:12 PM
I do not quite understand the massive flaming of anyone that points out what could be legitimate problems with this legislation.

Of course, I also don't understand why people so staunchly in favor of getting rid of guns don't just go right to the root (legally) of the problem - if the US Constitution's Second Amendment is the legal standing people use to justify their gun ownership, then why not simply push to amend, edit, overwrite or remove that part, rather than these odd half-measures and legislative run-arounds?
 
2013-01-15 08:41:18 PM

BojanglesPaladin: mrshowrules: Is it obscure or am I that dumb.

Not knowing ersatz doesn't mean you are dumb. Just that your personal lexicon hasn't reached its apogee. But it's OK. Excessive philology is largely an emollient palliative for intellectual insecurity anyway.


I'm not convinced all those words were cromulent.
 
2013-01-15 08:42:10 PM

Zalan: queezyweezel: wee: (VI) A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, MUZZLE BREAK, MUZZLE COMPENSATOR, OR THREADED BARREL DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, MUZZLE BREAK, OR MUZZLE COMPENSATOR; Those retards don't even know what the fark a muzzle brake is...

I like the banning of flash suppressors....When in the history of EVER have civilian casualties been limited because the shooter was shooting at night, and people didn't know where the shots were coming from because they couldn't see the muzzle flash?  These kinds of feel-good gun control measures make me spit.

DC Sniper?


DC sniper used the trunk of a car with a hole in it as a flash/sound suppressor not anything attached to the rifle. banning these will do nothing at all
 
2013-01-15 08:53:38 PM

Warlordtrooper: Do crazy people still have Constitutional Rights?


Those that are convicted of certain crimes forfeit their rights. 'Crazy' is a vague generality so your question needs to be redefined. crazy as in being admitted to a mental institution? Probably - there needs to be some rights that should be revoked. Crazy as defined as the farklibs that state that anyone that owns a gun is some wackjob in need of therapy? Nope.
 
2013-01-15 09:23:06 PM

tomcatadam: I do not quite understand the massive flaming of anyone that points out what could be legitimate problems with this legislation.


Well, they can't exactly throw them in jail. Yet.
 
2013-01-15 09:44:22 PM

BojanglesPaladin: I find it odd how many Farkers here are being derisive about any criticism of this legislation.

This bill has some SERIOUS problems, based on just the AP wire report of it. Not least of which is apprantly making it a criminal issue if a health care provider does not properly report someone as potentialy violent. And also apparantly empowering the police to go and confiscate guns from anyone a healthcare provider reports as a violence risk. No conviction, mind you, no due process. just a "health care professional" assesment and a report to the state.

Forget the guns, is THAT really something we WANT?

No way this will pass a court test as it is, but I find it disturbing to see so many people applauding a flagrant civil liberties violation.


This is what the pro-gun folks have been asking for since Sandy Hook. It's not about the GUN, it's about the CRAZY people! Focus on mental health issues! The gun is just a tool, it's the freaks using it who are dangerous!

I've said it all along, they'd rather give up all their other rights as long as they can keep their artificial dicks. They are crazy.

/AR owner
 
2013-01-15 09:58:35 PM

Slackfumasta: BojanglesPaladin: I find it odd how many Farkers here are being derisive about any criticism of this legislation.

This bill has some SERIOUS problems, based on just the AP wire report of it. Not least of which is apprantly making it a criminal issue if a health care provider does not properly report someone as potentialy violent. And also apparantly empowering the police to go and confiscate guns from anyone a healthcare provider reports as a violence risk. No conviction, mind you, no due process. just a "health care professional" assesment and a report to the state.

Forget the guns, is THAT really something we WANT?

No way this will pass a court test as it is, but I find it disturbing to see so many people applauding a flagrant civil liberties violation.

This is what the pro-gun folks have been asking for since Sandy Hook. It's not about the GUN, it's about the CRAZY people! Focus on mental health issues! The gun is just a tool, it's the freaks using it who are dangerous!

I've said it all along, they'd rather give up all their other rights as long as they can keep their artificial dicks. They are crazy.

/AR owner


You don't see the problem if you start seizing weapons without a court proceeding? You really wanna give up the right to a trial?
 
2013-01-15 10:46:10 PM

Mrbogey: Slackfumasta: BojanglesPaladin: I find it odd how many Farkers here are being derisive about any criticism of this legislation.

This bill has some SERIOUS problems, based on just the AP wire report of it. Not least of which is apprantly making it a criminal issue if a health care provider does not properly report someone as potentialy violent. And also apparantly empowering the police to go and confiscate guns from anyone a healthcare provider reports as a violence risk. No conviction, mind you, no due process. just a "health care professional" assesment and a report to the state.

Forget the guns, is THAT really something we WANT?

No way this will pass a court test as it is, but I find it disturbing to see so many people applauding a flagrant civil liberties violation.

This is what the pro-gun folks have been asking for since Sandy Hook. It's not about the GUN, it's about the CRAZY people! Focus on mental health issues! The gun is just a tool, it's the freaks using it who are dangerous!

I've said it all along, they'd rather give up all their other rights as long as they can keep their artificial dicks. They are crazy.

/AR owner

You don't see the problem if you start seizing weapons without a court proceeding? You really wanna give up the right to a trial?


What I'm saying is that since this debate began, the pro-gun folks kept proclaiming very loudly that the problem was mentally ill people, not guns - and now they are getting what they want, which is to protect their gun ownership by giving up other rights. Anything but gun control, even giving up your right to privacy!

I don't think they thought their cunning plan all the way through.
 
2013-01-15 11:25:32 PM

Slackfumasta:
What I'm saying is that since this debate began, the pro-gun folks kept proclaiming very loudly that the problem was mentally ill people, not guns - and now they are getting what they want, which is to protect their gun ownership by giving up other rights. Anything but gun control, even giving up your right to privacy!

I don't think they thought their cunning plan all the way through.


Now we see what the gun-banners really want - declare all gun owners crazy, then take their guns away.

/so, is that how I build a strawman argument?
//I learned it from you, okay!
 
2013-01-16 12:14:28 AM

Slackfumasta: What I'm saying is that since this debate began, the pro-gun folks kept proclaiming very loudly that the problem was mentally ill people, not guns - and now they are getting what they want, which is to protect their gun ownership by giving up other rights. Anything but gun control, even giving up your right to privacy!

I don't think they thought their cunning plan all the way through.


Do you really want your argument to be that gun owners didn't count on the other side going down the dumbest avenue? Gun owners aren't advocating anyone give up any rights.
 
2013-01-16 12:16:46 AM

TofuTheAlmighty: Bans of cosmetic or superfluous firearm features are completely useless and an egregious trampling of our liberty.


Meh, it's a "tough on crime" stance that is popular with the think of the children crowd.

These people would require the TSA to frisk anyone who comes near them if they thought the could make it law. Sad really.
 
2013-01-16 01:44:23 AM

Citrate1007: How is the State Rights thing working out for you Tea Party...... and here you thought it would only be used to discriminate against gays and pregnant women.


Not that I am a tea partier, and I don't care what consenting adults do, etc., but whenever you want to bring real states rights out, from top to bottom, I'll beat you to the pot.

/pregnant women should be falcon punched
 
2013-01-16 02:07:01 AM
so wait, are they trying to say that a person who is willing to break laws by, say, walking onto school grounds and, say, shooting 20 children is going to worry about breaking an additional law because his magazine has more than 7 bullets in it?

/ If the guy in CT had 2 samurai swords, he could have killed just as many kids. Kids are easy to kill. I assume. I've never really tried it.
 
2013-01-16 02:08:05 AM
MAYBE even MORE kids would have been killed because the neighboring classes wouldnt have heard gunshots.
 
2013-01-16 02:20:18 AM

queezyweezel: Philip Francis Queeg: queezyweezel: Philip Francis Queeg: sugar_fetus: Philip Francis Queeg: So the take away from this thread is that when the anti-gun control folks said "do something about mental health and keep the guns away from the crazy people instead" after Sandy Hook, they were just completely full of shiat.

"do something about mental health and keep the guns away from the crazy people instead" != violating the 4th Amendment.

Well, then what were you actually proposing?

Smaller, pointed bills that weren't stuffed full of other crap that isn't wanted nor needed.  When you try and bundle everything into one bill, it becomes bloated, and a nightmare to pass.

Address the mental health issue specifically. What,measures were the anti-gun control people supporting?

Most of my hunting/shooting friends support mandatory mental health evaluations, more thorough background checks, and closing the gun show loopholes.  We also support mandatory proficiency and safety tests.  If you own a gun, you better know how to safely operate it.


Deal. Now you and your friends need to convince the NRA.
 
kab
2013-01-16 06:17:47 AM

queezyweezel: So I can keep my 10-30 round magazine, but I break the law if I put more than 7 rounds in it. GOT IT.

/So f*cking dumb....


Section 38 of the bill amends Penal Law 265.00(23) to ban all large
capacity magazines that have the capacity to hold more than ten
rounds of ammunition including those that were grandfathered in under
the original assault weapons ban and creates a new ban on magazines
that hold more than seven rounds of ammunition. Magazines that can
hold more than seven rounds but not more than ten rounds and are
currently possessed will be grandfathered in, but may only contain
seven rounds of ammunition.


So the answer is no, you cannot has.
 
2013-01-16 10:27:48 AM

iron_city_ap: DGS: Until subby or anyone else can give me lucid points as to why this is crazy, I shall have to insist that any opposition is either deliberate trolling or deliberate fearmongering.

/NYS resident

My handgun comes standard with a 17 round magazine. Under this law, I can't own the gun if I moved to NY. Magazines are capped at a 10 round capacity. I can't even only load it with 7. So, I'd have to sell the gun to a licensed dealer who would only give me pennies on the dollar and then turn around and sell it out of state for closer to its actual value.

This law makes as much sense as NYCs pop ban.


no one is forcing you to move here.

/sandy hook was a little fishy, but i have no problem with taking away some of the gun nuts toys.
 
2013-01-16 11:34:23 AM

sugar_fetus: Now we see what the gun-banners really want - declare all gun owners crazy, then take their guns away.

so, is that how I build a strawman argument?


Acutally, many of the gun grabbers have stated exactly that. Not quite the strawmans you claim.
 
2013-01-16 11:40:51 AM

xxcorydxx: /sandy hook was a little fishy, but i have no problem with taking away some of the gun nuts toys.


What other enumerated rights do you want to see arbitrarily and capriciously removed?

With useful sheep like you, it is no wonder totalitarianism is slowly but steadily replacing freedom and liberty.
 
Displayed 50 of 231 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report