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  
•       •       •

3611 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
 
2013-01-15 01:27:51 PM  
Democratically-elected representatives passing legislation that further regulates items that are already regulated is so crazy!
 
2013-01-15 01:37:40 PM  
I'm all for it.

/NYS resident
 
2013-01-15 01:46:46 PM  
I'm not going to read this. I'm just going to PAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANIC!
 
2013-01-15 01:48:59 PM  
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?
 
2013-01-15 01:49:18 PM  
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.
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2013-01-15 01:49:31 PM  
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
 
2013-01-15 01:50:11 PM  

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.
 
2013-01-15 01:50:24 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


Can't it be both?
 
2013-01-15 01:50:34 PM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: I'm not going to read this. I'm just going to PAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANIC-buy tens of thousands of dollars worth of rifles, handguns, ammo, and tactical gear!


Because someday they might enact new Federal Law. I've been ascairt of it since Reagan (PBUH) first warned me, but I just KNOW this Kenyan fella wants my armory.
 
2013-01-15 01:51:06 PM  
I'm sure this thread will be entirely rational and based on the actual contents of the law.

I'll start the fun by not reading it. I didn't read it now and I'm not going to read it later.
 
2013-01-15 01:51:06 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.


Well, better start killing people now.

/Please don't start killing people now
 
2013-01-15 01:51:24 PM  

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.


+1
 
2013-01-15 01:52:13 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.



I THOUGHT THIS WAS AMERICA
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2013-01-15 01:52:40 PM  

Tarl3k: 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

Can't it be both?


It isn't unfair to change the or to and/or, I suppose. It's hardly unrealistic.
 
2013-01-15 01:54:17 PM  
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....
 
2013-01-15 01:56:33 PM  

thurstonxhowell: I'm sure this thread will be entirely rational and based on the actual contents of the law.

I'll start the fun by not reading it. I didn't read it now and I'm not going to read it later.


Then I suggest you join me. I'm over here panicking.
 
2013-01-15 01:56:36 PM  

Lumpmoose: Democratically-elected representatives passing legislation that further regulates items that are already regulated is so crazy!


According to Subby, it's exactly as crazy as requiring brown people to have zheir paperz in order at all times, outlawing abortion OR redefining rape!
 
2013-01-15 01:58:20 PM  
This reminds me of the time my state outlawed shotguns that can hold more than three shells.
 
2013-01-15 01:58:44 PM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: thurstonxhowell: I'm sure this thread will be entirely rational and based on the actual contents of the law.

I'll start the fun by not reading it. I didn't read it now and I'm not going to read it later.

Then I suggest you join me. I'm over here panicking.


That sounds fun. I have some hand sanitizer we can drink. It's not very toxic.
 
2013-01-15 02:00:08 PM  

make me some tea: I'm all for it.

/NYS resident


This.

Also gun-owner.
 
wee
2013-01-15 02:02:34 PM  
(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...
 
2013-01-15 02:02:58 PM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: thurstonxhowell: I'm sure this thread will be entirely rational and based on the actual contents of the law.

I'll start the fun by not reading it. I didn't read it now and I'm not going to read it later.

Then I suggest you join me. I'm over here panicking.


Can I join? Panicking is kind of my thing.
 
2013-01-15 02:06:08 PM  
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.
 
2013-01-15 02:06:17 PM  

PanicMan: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: thurstonxhowell: I'm sure this thread will be entirely rational and based on the actual contents of the law.

I'll start the fun by not reading it. I didn't read it now and I'm not going to read it later.

Then I suggest you join me. I'm over here panicking.

Can I join? Panicking is kind of my thing.


Panicking gets exponentially more effective the more people that do it. Of course you can!
 
2013-01-15 02:07:17 PM  

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.
 
2013-01-15 02:07:58 PM  

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?
 
2013-01-15 02:08:54 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.


Look, the point of it is to ban weapons that are military in nature. Hunting rifles have no need for any of those things, thus a ban on the characteristics of a military-style weapon makes sense.
 
2013-01-15 02:08:55 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.


And what harm does banning flash suppressors do? Is there a reason you desire to be able to shoot at night without the flash being seen?
 
2013-01-15 02:09:53 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?


Not at all, I just think including that wording is silly.
 
2013-01-15 02:10:40 PM  
Went through the New York Post article for this. Here's my take for each provision mentioned in the article. If my understandings of each provision are inaccurate, please find me the accurate source. NYP article

"The legislation, called the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act, or NYSAFE, now defines an assault weapon as any having detachable magazines and one military-style feature, instead of two."

-Not particularly meaningful, as "military-style features" are more often than not effective measures of a weapon's "lethality".

"It also includes a ban on all magazines that hold more than seven rounds, and bans direct Internet ammunition sales. "

-Seven round magazines are very difficult to find for any weapon, "military style" or not. Most Internet ammunition suppliers did not ship to New York state before this law, so the effect of this legislation remains to be seen.

"The bill calls for universal background checks for all gun sales, as well as real-time background checks of ammunition purchases in order to alert State Police to high-volume buyers. "

-This would be a change, albeit a minor one. Federal law already maintains a background check system, which must be filled out in-store at a gun shop with a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Falsification of said form is prosecutable as perjury.

I have yet to see the specific number that would indicate "high-volume" ammunition purchases, which could be an editorial omission. If not, it leaves open the possibility of arbitrary decisions by the government as to what constitutes such a purchase, which is never a good thing. Furthermore, many marksmen and hunters make large purchases before hunting seasons in order to practice. The State Police in New York would probably be catching more false alarms with this technique than actual problems.

"Individuals who already own assault weapons will be required to register them within a year and be recertified every five years."

This is not yet mandated by Federal law. In my opinion, it makes the rather tacky assumption that people who own such firearms are, by their very nature, mentally ill. If evaluations are to be made, they should be on the scale of the entire population.

"There is also a "Webster provision," which calls for a life-without-parole sentence for killers of first responders. The measure was inspired by the Christmas Eve shooting in upstate Webster that killed two firefighters responding to a blaze."

- Fair enough.

"If the bill passes, mental-health professionals would be required to report potentially dangerous patients - who could then have their guns yanked - and mentally ill inmates would have to undergo review before being released from prison. Mandatory treatment for potentially dangerous mentally ill individuals would be broadened to a year, up from the current six months. "

-Arguably the most useful provision of this bill. It's already illegal to sell a weapon to a dangerously unstable person, but there was no real way to report this.

"Also under the bill, the state would develop an electronic gun- permit database to identify individuals disqualified from owning guns. Private gun transfers would require background checks, except for immediate family. "

The electronic database would be useful, but people who are criminals usually ignore sources that would require background checks. This won't change with the immediate family provision.

"Sen. Martin Golden (R-Brooklyn) said the bill also strengthens penalties for guns used in gang activities and allows prosecution of each gang member who uses a so-called "community gun.""

-Again, fair enough.

"The legislation included provisions pushed for by Republicans, including making it a felony to possess a firearm on school grounds or a school bus and allowing pistol-permit holders to request their personal information not be made public. "

-It's already a felony to possess a firearm on school grounds or a school bus, and has been for quite a while at the national level. Such laws have had little effect in blocking people who intend to use weapons to harm those on school grounds.

The removal of pistol-permit owner information from the public record is a good thing. A New York newspaper recently published the addresses of many such permit holders in Manhattan, making these individuals targets for burglaries and discrimination.

"Politicians from both sides of the aisle noted that Cuomo, who was planning to waive a three-day aging period for bills and allow lawmakers to vote on the gun legislation immediately, would beat the White House with the nation's first gun-control package."

-Forcing legislation is never a good thing, Governor.
The bill is a mixture of some measures that could have some chance of working and pure superstitious garbage, shoved through by a legislature that is made of people who know little or nothing about what they care to legislate.
 
2013-01-15 02:11:13 PM  
(A) A SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE THAT HAS AN ABILITY TO ACCEPT A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE AND HAS AT LEAST ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CHARACTERISTICS: (I) A FOLDING OR TELESCOPING STOCK; (II) A PISTOL GRIP THAT PROTRUDES CONSPICUOUSLY BENEATH THE ACTION OF THE WEAPON; (III) A THUMBHOLE STOCK; (IV) A SECOND HANDGRIP OR A PROTRUDING GRIP THAT CAN BE HELD BY THE NON-TRIGGER HAND; (V) A BAYONET MOUNT; (VI) A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, MUZZLE BREAK, MUZZLE COMPENSATOR, OR THREADED BARREL DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, MUZZLE BREAK, OR MUZZLE COMPENSATOR; (VII) A GRENADE LAUNCHER; ORSo they just made pretty much every match grade target shooting rifle used by olympians illegal....
 
2013-01-15 02:11:15 PM  
Bans of cosmetic or superfluous firearm features are completely useless and an egregious trampling of our liberty.
 
2013-01-15 02:11:15 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: 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.

And what harm does banning flash suppressors do? Is there a reason you desire to be able to shoot at night without the flash being seen?


Feral hog sniper teams will be able to spot him.
 
2013-01-15 02:11:40 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: And what harm does banning flash suppressors do? Is there a reason you desire to be able to shoot at night without the flash being seen?


harder to get caught 'jacking if you can't see the flash.
 
2013-01-15 02:12:08 PM  

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.


I'm all for the criminals stabbing each other to death and suffocating each other to death and whatever other ways they can think of killing each other that doesn't have a massive risk of unintended casualties.
 
2013-01-15 02:13:40 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: 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.

And what harm does banning flash suppressors do? Is there a reason you desire to be able to shoot at night without the flash being seen?


Flash suppressors don't just hide the flash from other people, they hide it from you. If you're waking up to someone in your house at 3:00 AM, and end up firing on that person, you can be temporarily blinded by muzzle flash. This is a problem when you're trying to control a threat.
Overall, it's not really a big deal to have one on a firearm, and they don't make a weapon any more or less lethal in the situations this legislation is meant to prevent. It's another example of people not knowing what they're dealing with when it comes to firearms.
 
2013-01-15 02:13:43 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: 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.

Look, the point of it is to ban weapons that are military in nature. Hunting rifles have no need for any of those things, thus a ban on the characteristics of a military-style weapon makes sense.


What was the second ammendment made for?
 
2013-01-15 02:14:42 PM  

Marine1: Philip Francis Queeg: 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.

And what harm does banning flash suppressors do? Is there a reason you desire to be able to shoot at night without the flash being seen?

Flash suppressors don't just hide the flash from other people, they hide it from you. If you're waking up to someone in your house at 3:00 AM, and end up firing on that person, you can be temporarily blinded by muzzle flash. This is a problem when you're trying to control a threat.
Overall, it's not really a big deal to have one on a firearm, and they don't make a weapon any more or less lethal in the situations this legislation is meant to prevent. It's another example of people not knowing what they're dealing with when it comes to firearms.


Exactly.
 
2013-01-15 02:15:36 PM  
I'm glad Fark has a gun tab now.
 
2013-01-15 02:17:10 PM  

Marine1: Philip Francis Queeg: 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.

And what harm does banning flash suppressors do? Is there a reason you desire to be able to shoot at night without the flash being seen?

Flash suppressors don't just hide the flash from other people, they hide it from you. If you're waking up to someone in your house at 3:00 AM, and end up firing on that person, you can be temporarily blinded by muzzle flash. This is a problem when you're trying to control a threat.
Overall, it's not really a big deal to have one on a firearm, and they don't make a weapon any more or less lethal in the situations this legislation is meant to prevent. It's another example of people not knowing what they're dealing with when it comes to firearms.


This situation has never actually occurred in the history of home defense.
 
2013-01-15 02:18:03 PM  

Marine1: Philip Francis Queeg: 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.

And what harm does banning flash suppressors do? Is there a reason you desire to be able to shoot at night without the flash being seen?

Flash suppressors don't just hide the flash from other people, they hide it from you. If you're waking up to someone in your house at 3:00 AM, and end up firing on that person, you can be temporarily blinded by muzzle flash. This is a problem when you're trying to control a threat.
Overall, it's not really a big deal to have one on a firearm, and they don't make a weapon any more or less lethal in the situations this legislation is meant to prevent. It's another example of people not knowing what they're dealing with when it comes to firearms.


If it's dark enough that you are worried about being blinded by the muzzle flash, how are you identifying the target as worthy of being killed by you? Do you randomly fire at shadows on a regular basis?
 
2013-01-15 02:18:51 PM  
Well, a muzzle break isn't a flash suppressor. My handgun has a muzzle break, all it does is lower recoil.
 
2013-01-15 02:21:29 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Marine1: Philip Francis Queeg: 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.

And what harm does banning flash suppressors do? Is there a reason you desire to be able to shoot at night without the flash being seen?

Flash suppressors don't just hide the flash from other people, they hide it from you. If you're waking up to someone in your house at 3:00 AM, and end up firing on that person, you can be temporarily blinded by muzzle flash. This is a problem when you're trying to control a threat.
Overall, it's not really a big deal to have one on a firearm, and they don't make a weapon any more or less lethal in the situations this legislation is meant to prevent. It's another example of people not knowing what they're dealing with when it comes to firearms.

If it's dark enough that you are worried about being blinded by the muzzle flash, how are you identifying the target as worthy of being killed by you? Do you randomly fire at shadows on a regular basis?


If you're doing what you should be doing, you're bringing a flashlight along with you. That doesn't mean the room is lit well enough to make up for a huge flame coming out of a pencil-diameter hole and the ensuing light hitting your optic nerves like a brick.

Lost Thought 00:

This situation has never actually occurred in the history of home defense.


Got proof?
 
2013-01-15 02:23:07 PM  

Marine1: Lost Thought 00:

This situation has never actually occurred in the history of home defense.

Got proof?



You're the one who brought the situation up. I'm just calling bullshiat
 
2013-01-15 02:25:29 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Look, the point of it is to ban weapons that are military in nature. Hunting rifles have no need for any of those things


The Remington 700 is basically millitary in nature. All current firearms can be somewhat traced back through millitary history or has millitary connections somewhere.

Your point is moot.
 
2013-01-15 02:26:11 PM  

Marine1: If it's dark enough that you are worried about being blinded by the muzzle flash, how are you identifying the target as worthy of being killed by you? Do you randomly fire at shadows on a regular basis?

If you're doing what you should be doing, you're bringing a flashlight along with you. That doesn't mean the room is lit well enough to make up for a huge flame coming out of a pencil-diameter hole and the ensuing light hitting your optic nerves like a brick.


And this flashlight somehow provides enough illumination for you to accurately identify the target 100% of the time while leaving your nigh vision intact?
 
2013-01-15 02:26:46 PM  

Lost Thought 00: Marine1: Lost Thought 00:

This situation has never actually occurred in the history of home defense.

Got proof?


You're the one who brought the situation up. I'm just calling bullshiat


You are the one that made the assertion. Go ahead and back it up.
 
2013-01-15 02:27:39 PM  

Lost Thought 00: Marine1: Lost Thought 00:

This situation has never actually occurred in the history of home defense.

Got proof?


You're the one who brought the situation up. I'm just calling bullshiat


http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/lowlight8.htm
(that guy is a pretty straight shooter (pun intended) when it comes to dispelling firearms myths and boasts.)
 
2013-01-15 02:29:04 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Marine1: If it's dark enough that you are worried about being blinded by the muzzle flash, how are you identifying the target as worthy of being killed by you? Do you randomly fire at shadows on a regular basis?

If you're doing what you should be doing, you're bringing a flashlight along with you. That doesn't mean the room is lit well enough to make up for a huge flame coming out of a pencil-diameter hole and the ensuing light hitting your optic nerves like a brick.

And this flashlight somehow provides enough illumination for you to accurately identify the target 100% of the time while leaving your nigh vision intact?


Well, try an experiment tonight. Get a flashlight when the house/apartment/whatever is dark, have someone familiar to you in the dark, and try to identify them with the flashlight.

You'll get your answer then. What it is shall be up to you.
 
2013-01-15 02:29:26 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Marine
If it's dark enough that you are worried about being blinded by the muzzle flash, how are you identifying the target as worthy of being killed by you? Do you randomly fire at shadows on a regular basis?


I do believe we have very different ways of dealing with the boogieman.
 
2013-01-15 02:31:05 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: And what harm does banning flash suppressors do? Is there a reason you desire to be able to shoot at night without the flash being seen?


Well, looking at it practically as an owner of an about-to-be-illegal weapon, let's say you're trying to modify it so that it's legal. You could get a new, non-adjustable stock without a pistol grip, and remove or disable the bayonet mount, but because this new law is "one-feature", your weapon is still illegal, because of the flash suppressor. If it's threaded, that's ok -- remove it. If it's fixed, you either have to have some kind of shroud welded around it or have it chopped off, which might make your barrel too short to be legal. Or, I guess you could spend a couple hundred bucks on a new barrel.

It also makes a lot of target handguns illegal. I dunno, overall, I don't have a lot of problems with this law, I guess. But I think the mag cap is the only really effective part -- the rest just severely inconveniences gun owners without changing the effectiveness of the weapon. I guess I think if you want legislation to pass, it should be simple and not overly-inconvenient for owners, like a flat-out mag limit, rather than "now you have to spend eight hundred dollars re-building your no-longer-legal rifle to make it into a legal rifle that shoots the same bullets at the same rate of fire, but has to be held slightly differently."
 
2013-01-15 02:31:28 PM  

Marine1: Philip Francis Queeg: Marine1: If it's dark enough that you are worried about being blinded by the muzzle flash, how are you identifying the target as worthy of being killed by you? Do you randomly fire at shadows on a regular basis?

If you're doing what you should be doing, you're bringing a flashlight along with you. That doesn't mean the room is lit well enough to make up for a huge flame coming out of a pencil-diameter hole and the ensuing light hitting your optic nerves like a brick.

And this flashlight somehow provides enough illumination for you to accurately identify the target 100% of the time while leaving your nigh vision intact?

Well, try an experiment tonight. Get a flashlight when the house/apartment/whatever is dark, have someone familiar to you in the dark, and try to identify them with the flashlight.

You'll get your answer then. What it is shall be up to you.


Nah, I'll be like you and shoot at any shadow that moves.
 
2013-01-15 02:33:15 PM  

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....


I can keep my car, but I'm breaking the law if I put more than 5 people in it. My car can seat up to 30 circus-folk; what gives, COMMUNIST States of Commierica?
 
2013-01-15 02:35:38 PM  

queezyweezel: http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/lowlight8.htm
(that guy is a pretty straight shooter (pun intended) when it comes to dispelling firearms myths and boasts.)


Intelligent and entertaining, like iraqveteran8888 and the guys from Moss Pawn... and unlike FPS (I don't enjoy him anyway, to each their own)
 
2013-01-15 02:36:24 PM  

flux: Philip Francis Queeg: And what harm does banning flash suppressors do? Is there a reason you desire to be able to shoot at night without the flash being seen?

Well, looking at it practically as an owner of an about-to-be-illegal weapon, let's say you're trying to modify it so that it's legal. You could get a new, non-adjustable stock without a pistol grip, and remove or disable the bayonet mount, but because this new law is "one-feature", your weapon is still illegal, because of the flash suppressor. If it's threaded, that's ok -- remove it. If it's fixed, you either have to have some kind of shroud welded around it or have it chopped off, which might make your barrel too short to be legal. Or, I guess you could spend a couple hundred bucks on a new barrel.

It also makes a lot of target handguns illegal. I dunno, overall, I don't have a lot of problems with this law, I guess. But I think the mag cap is the only really effective part -- the rest just severely inconveniences gun owners without changing the effectiveness of the weapon. I guess I think if you want legislation to pass, it should be simple and not overly-inconvenient for owners, like a flat-out mag limit, rather than "now you have to spend eight hundred dollars re-building your no-longer-legal rifle to make it into a legal rifle that shoots the same bullets at the same rate of fire, but has to be held slightly differently."


The mag capacity just seems so... arbitrary... though.

10 was the old limit in NY state. Is there anything stating what kind of magazines the Sandy Hook shooter used? I'm willing to bet it's higher than 10, or 15 (what New Jersey uses, IIRC). If you're already on the low end, and no real shootings occurred under the old law... then why bother with changing? Furthermore, I can't think of a good source for 7 round magazines for any rifle, "assault weapon" or not. Five-rounders aren't easy to find, either.

It's just so... hackneyed. It's feel-good legislation, at least with the "assault weapon" provisions.
 
2013-01-15 02:38:20 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Marine1: Philip Francis Queeg: Marine1: If it's dark enough that you are worried about being blinded by the muzzle flash, how are you identifying the target as worthy of being killed by you? Do you randomly fire at shadows on a regular basis?

If you're doing what you should be doing, you're bringing a flashlight along with you. That doesn't mean the room is lit well enough to make up for a huge flame coming out of a pencil-diameter hole and the ensuing light hitting your optic nerves like a brick.

And this flashlight somehow provides enough illumination for you to accurately identify the target 100% of the time while leaving your nigh vision intact?

Well, try an experiment tonight. Get a flashlight when the house/apartment/whatever is dark, have someone familiar to you in the dark, and try to identify them with the flashlight.

You'll get your answer then. What it is shall be up to you.

Nah, I'll be like you and shoot at any shadow that moves.


So... you're not going to try and get at the truth?

Why should I take you seriously, then? I want to, man.

thumbnails.hulu.com

Help me Alex... help me... help you. Help me... help you.
 
2013-01-15 02:38:42 PM  

queezyweezel: Lost Thought 00: Marine1: Lost Thought 00:

This situation has never actually occurred in the history of home defense.

Got proof?


You're the one who brought the situation up. I'm just calling bullshiat

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/lowlight8.htm
(that guy is a pretty straight shooter (pun intended) when it comes to dispelling firearms myths and boasts.)


I think the bullet(s) you just fired at another human being with the intention of murdering them would have a bigger impact on your home defense situation than any temporary blindness
 
2013-01-15 02:39:12 PM  

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


Pretty much the definition of arbitrary and capricious. I guess the only benefit is that some politicans and folks that don't know any better now feel better about themselves.
 
2013-01-15 02:40:26 PM  

Lost Thought 00: queezyweezel: Lost Thought 00: Marine1: Lost Thought 00:

This situation has never actually occurred in the history of home defense.

Got proof?


You're the one who brought the situation up. I'm just calling bullshiat

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/lowlight8.htm
(that guy is a pretty straight shooter (pun intended) when it comes to dispelling firearms myths and boasts.)

I think the bullet(s) you just fired at another human being with the intention of murdering them would have a bigger impact on your home defense situation than any temporary blindness


Not quite sure where you're headed with that statement.
 
2013-01-15 02:40:45 PM  

Marine1: If you're doing what you should be doing, you're bringing a flashlight along with you. That doesn't mean the room is lit well enough to make up for a huge flame coming out of a pencil-diameter hole and the ensuing light hitting your optic nerves like a brick.


So then they just spray bullets in the direction of the flashlight.
 
2013-01-15 02:40:47 PM  

Lost Thought 00:
I think the bullet(s) you just fired at another human being with the intention of murdering them would have a bigger impact on your home defense situation than any temporary blindness


Only so long as you didn't miss the first time.
 
2013-01-15 02:41:46 PM  

Gosling: Marine1: If you're doing what you should be doing, you're bringing a flashlight along with you. That doesn't mean the room is lit well enough to make up for a huge flame coming out of a pencil-diameter hole and the ensuing light hitting your optic nerves like a brick.

So then they just spray bullets in the direction of the flashlight.


I'd rather get the target right.
 
2013-01-15 02:42:09 PM  

Marine1: Philip Francis Queeg: Marine1: Philip Francis Queeg: Marine1: If it's dark enough that you are worried about being blinded by the muzzle flash, how are you identifying the target as worthy of being killed by you? Do you randomly fire at shadows on a regular basis?

If you're doing what you should be doing, you're bringing a flashlight along with you. That doesn't mean the room is lit well enough to make up for a huge flame coming out of a pencil-diameter hole and the ensuing light hitting your optic nerves like a brick.

And this flashlight somehow provides enough illumination for you to accurately identify the target 100% of the time while leaving your nigh vision intact?

Well, try an experiment tonight. Get a flashlight when the house/apartment/whatever is dark, have someone familiar to you in the dark, and try to identify them with the flashlight.

You'll get your answer then. What it is shall be up to you.

Nah, I'll be like you and shoot at any shadow that moves.

So... you're not going to try and get at the truth?

Why should I take you seriously, then? I want to, man.

[thumbnails.hulu.com image 512x288]

Help me Alex... help me... help you. Help me... help you.


Oh I think we've established the truth that you would be willing to use your weapon under conditions that are unsafe and unwise. I Pity anyone who has the misfortune to leave near a hazard like you.
 
2013-01-15 02:43:25 PM  

HeadLever: Lost Thought 00:
I think the bullet(s) you just fired at another human being with the intention of murdering them would have a bigger impact on your home defense situation than any temporary blindness

Only so long as you didn't miss the first time.


If you miss, and the other people are armed and ready to shoot you (as they must be for it to be defense), then there won't be a second time. Cowboy style shootouts where you empty your clip and reload just don't happen
 
2013-01-15 02:44:27 PM  

Lost Thought 00: If you miss, and the other people are armed and ready to shoot you (as they must be for it to be defense)


Not always true
 
2013-01-15 02:44:50 PM  
Like a lot of people, I've been thinking more and more about guns and laws to effectively limit the amount of damage a crazy person can do with them.

Honestly, I'm at a complete loss. Any state that passes a law is fine and good, but in all likelihood there's another state within a couple hundred miles that can legally sell whatever it is you happen to ban in your own state. The borders between states are pretty much non-existent from a security standpoint so the flow of whatever features so-and-so wants on his gun isn't so much a function of availability, merely tolerance for knowingly breaking the law.

I think the real problem, the big problem here is not the guns themselves. Nor is it the way that guns are portrayed in the media (movies, TV, videogames... you name it). You can watch and consume American style media anywhere on the planet... hell, in Canuckistan, where I am right now, you are almost purely are exposed to US media.

So what's the root cause? I think it's the way that the 2nd Amendment is so romantically intertwined with modern "patriotism". There is a link in the minds of many Americans between freedom and guns. There is a fondness for guns that you really don't tend to see in any other nation. There's also a big swinging dick mentality that a lone citizen... inexperienced in real life at taking fire and returning fire on live opponents... can save a group of other citizens in a public place from a planned surprise attack by being armed with a handgun. I don't think that fantasy is as ingrained in average citizens of other nations.

Add to this a nation that has a rather lacking public mental health system and you've got a recipe for what's been happening. Availability, romance and mental illness... how do you legislate against that?

/And don't look at me, I don't have an answer for that...

I think all of this has made
 
2013-01-15 02:45:43 PM  

Dr Dreidel: 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....

I can keep my car, but I'm breaking the law if I put more than 5 people in it. My car can seat up to 30 circus-folk; what gives, COMMUNIST States of Commierica?


What I'm saying is that this section of the bill is completely toothless.  (I'd personally rather have it this way instead of calling for the destruction of any magazines with a capacity of zeven or more rounds, but it will do NOTHING to cut down on crime)
 
2013-01-15 02:46:10 PM  
I feel like taking away America's guns would do the same as lowering the drinking age to 13--we'd go full retard. We're a nation of irresponsible morons who acts like petulant children when asked to adhere to rules. The latter part of my analogy stands, however, in the sense that we simply lack the ability to act farking responsibly when it comes to, well, anything.

I loathe guns. It's too much power for any one person to have. Ever. And I mean principally you "responsible" guns owners--so don't give me the "Well, when someone breaks into your house..." argument--I wish they didn't have access almost as much as I wish you didn't. Since they've evolved from a tool to whatever you'd currently call them, they've frankly caused much more harm than good. And I'm frankly not sure you can do fark all about it.
 
2013-01-15 02:48:37 PM  
Fark might have to create a New York tag

No. Florida is special. You are not. Deal with it.
 
2013-01-15 02:49:59 PM  

Lost Thought 00: you miss, and the other people are armed and ready to shoot you (as they must be for it to be defense),


? Who says you did not also blind the intruder? The goal would be to keep the upper hand. Why give up any advantage when you don't need to?
 
2013-01-15 02:50:59 PM  

HeadLever: Lost Thought 00: you miss, and the other people are armed and ready to shoot you (as they must be for it to be defense),

? Who says you did not also blind the intruder? The goal would be to keep the upper hand. Why give up any advantage when you don't need to?


Both you and him blind gives you the upper hand how exactly?
 
2013-01-15 02:56:46 PM  
De facto confiscation of magazines capable of containing more than ten rounds, criminal charges for anyone who puts more than seven rounds in any magazine, any so-called assault weapon can't be sold to another civilian in New York, gun registration (not that they would ever think to use said registry for future confiscation, right)...wow, just wow.

Also, a background check for ammunition purchases? Gee, that won't drive up the price of ammunition.

New York gun owners, you're getting farked on this one. People rightly complain about states like Kansas sneering at the Constitution, and now New York takes the spotlight.
 
2013-01-15 02:58:36 PM  

jst3p: HeadLever: Lost Thought 00: you miss, and the other people are armed and ready to shoot you (as they must be for it to be defense),

? Who says you did not also blind the intruder? The goal would be to keep the upper hand. Why give up any advantage when you don't need to?

Both you and him blind gives you the upper hand how exactly?


Hmmmmm... this would be an interesting case for mythbusters. As humans we are really visual creatures. What would be the likelihood of getting flashed across the eyes (when your eyes are adjusted for darkness) by a flashlight and then accurately returning fire?

I tend agree with Marine1, myself. Even if carrying a flashlight with you when you go in search of home invaders puts you at more risk than if you snuck around like some kind of gun ninja, I'd much rather take that risk to make sure I'm shooting at an honest to goodness prowler than little Timmy who woke up hungry and figured he could swipe a cookie from the kitchen.

Now, personally... I would probably yell out that I was calling 911 and any sane criminal would just leave the house. If it were anyone who was supposed to be there, they'd probably answer me back. If it's a super insane home invader, they'll either rush you (and NOW you use your gun) or they'll lie in wait where you actually call 911 and barricade yourself and your family in the bedroom.
 
2013-01-15 02:59:08 PM  

Marine1: The mag capacity just seems so... arbitrary... though.


For most gun violence, yeah. But you can argue that requiring four mag changes for the number of rounds that can be fired with one current mag will have an impact specific to mass killings, especially when there's a pattern of the killers taking their own lives as soon as they hear sirens... a handful of seconds could mean a handful of lives there. And targeting mass killings may not have a measurable effect on gun violence overall, but mass killings do have a very different impact on the national psyche, and that matters.
 
2013-01-15 03:02:02 PM  
Do admins greenlight these headlines in order to shame wingnut submitters, or are they themselves shameless?
 
2013-01-15 03:04:39 PM  
Mercutio74:
Now, personally... I would probably yell out that I was calling 911 and any sane criminal would just leave the house. If it were anyone who was supposed to be there, they'd probably answer me back. If it's a super insane home invader, they'll either rush you (and NOW you use your gun) or they'll lie in wait where you actually call 911 and barricade yourself and your family in the bedroom.

What you describe is actually the right and safest thing to do(especially if you have a family to protect), but most gun nuts would never do it because they just want to kill someone legally. House intruder stories are like wet dreams to gun nuts.
 
2013-01-15 03:05:12 PM  

State_College_Arsonist: De facto confiscation of magazines capable of containing more than ten rounds, criminal charges for anyone who puts more than seven rounds in any magazine, any so-called assault weapon can't be sold to another civilian in New York, gun registration (not that they would ever think to use said registry for future confiscation, right)...wow, just wow.

Also, a background check for ammunition purchases? Gee, that won't drive up the price of ammunition.

New York gun owners, you're getting farked on this one. People rightly complain about states like Kansas sneering at the Constitution, and now New York takes the spotlight.


Yup.  And people are looking down on us for the simple act of wanting the Government to leave us alone.  Some want the Government to protect them from everything that COULD go wrong.  I just want them to provide me with infrastructure.
 
2013-01-15 03:05:36 PM  
And given that the AWB itself is way, way more contentious nationally than just limiting magazine capacity, I really wish they would try to pass a mag cap law on its own, THEN try to craft and pass a ban on certain weapons and features of weapons, instead of trying to package it all together. I think the mag cap alone has a much higher chance of passing. And then, at the very least, if the AWB goes nowhere, you've at least got what I think is the effective part already in place.
 
2013-01-15 03:05:39 PM  

State_College_Arsonist: Also, a background check for ammunition purchases? Gee, that won't drive up the price of ammunition.

New York gun owners, you're getting farked on this one. People rightly complain about states like Kansas sneering at the Constitution, and now New York takes the spotlight.


I don't know. You could run it so that you don't have to run a separate check everytime someone buys ammo. You could simply start a database and then if you're registered in that "safe to buy ammo" database simply use picture ID everytime you buy. The start up cost would be front loaded so there shouldn't be a long term issue with ammunition cost. If the ammo companies and retailers don't have to fund the database themselves (for example, maybe the state is paying for it) then the price shouldn't go up at all.

And I don't know, but this bill seems to not infringe on the ability of people to run a well regulated militia. You just can't do it with a lot of bullets in your gun at one time nor with a selection of bells and whistles that you generally find on military-purposed guns. I guess unless you happen to believe that the 2nd Amendment should allow for unrestricted use of armaments.
 
2013-01-15 03:06:30 PM  

DGS: any opposition is either deliberate trolling or deliberate fearmongerin

g

the opposition to this bill is the fearmongering?

Wow.
 
2013-01-15 03:15:52 PM  

Mercutio74: And I don't know, but this bill seems to not infringe on the ability of people to run a well regulated militia. You just can't do it with a lot of bullets in your gun at one time nor with a selection of bells and whistles that you generally find on military-purposed guns. I guess unless you happen to believe that the 2nd Amendment should allow for unrestricted use of armaments.


By defining the Second Amendment as essentially worthless, of course the new bans and regulations won't infringe upon the right to bear arms. What a surprise.
 
2013-01-15 03:18:59 PM  

SlothB77: DGS: any opposition is either deliberate trolling or deliberate fearmongering

the opposition to this bill is the fearmongering?

Wow.


Both side in this one are fearmongering.

"OH noes! You might get shot!"

vs.

"OH noes! They gonna take all the guns then we can't protect our other rights!"
 
2013-01-15 03:19:08 PM  
About farking time. While the national congress and senate may be broken and dysfunctional the new york senate is far from it.

This bill should be a national standard for all gun bills. I for one have had enought of crazy wackos and your creepy fetish leading to the deaths of thousands of americans.

fark you. And suck my big fat gun hating dick.
 
2013-01-15 03:22:53 PM  

electronicmaji: While the national congress and senate may be broken and dysfunctional the new york senate is far from it


How weird is it that we can say that now? I haven't seen the words "Albany" and "functional" in the same sentence in years.
 
2013-01-15 03:22:55 PM  

Marine1: t's already a felony to possess a firearm on school grounds or a school bus, and has been for quite a while at the national level.


Could you point me to something that says that please?
 
2013-01-15 03:24:10 PM  
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.
 
2013-01-15 03:25:04 PM  

spickus: Could you point me to something that says that please?


Agreed. Citation needed indeed.

/Can carry perfectly legally on school grounds, just not in the actual building (in TX, at least).
//30.06 sign FTW
 
2013-01-15 03:26:02 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Forget the guns, is THAT really something we WANT?


But of course it is. We'll FEEL better, doncha see?
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2013-01-15 03:26:21 PM  

SlothB77: DGS: any opposition is either deliberate trolling or deliberate fearmongering

the opposition to this bill is the fearmongering?

Wow.


Yep.
 
2013-01-15 03:29:10 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.


Actually, flash suppressors are generally designed so the *SHOOTER* isn't blinded by the shot at night. It has pretty much zero effect on the other end of the gun.
 
2013-01-15 03:30:22 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.


I don't farking care anymore the citizens of our country should seek permission to even be allowed to leave their homes following Newtown.

This country is shiat full if shiatizens and they should all be nuked off the map. Especially the south.

Im defecting to russia and china and as a nuclear physicist am going to make the bomb that will kill you all

fark YOU AMERICA
 
2013-01-15 03:30:37 PM  

Marine1: 10 was the old limit in NY state. Is there anything stating what kind of magazines the Sandy Hook shooter used? I'm willing to bet it's higher than 10, or 15 (what New Jersey uses, IIRC). If you're already on the low end, and no real shootings occurred under the old law... then why bother with changing? Furthermore, I can't think of a good source for 7 round magazines for any rifle, "assault weapon" or not. Five-rounders aren't easy to find, either.


The shooter at Sandy Hook used 30-round magazines (the standard for AR-15s for, what, 40 years now?). He fired something like 100 shots in 10-15 minutes, so his overall rate of fire wasn't terribly high. Reports indicate that he was changing magazines really frequently, often changing 30-round mags with 15 rounds still remaining.

The Virginia Tech shooter used 10 and 15 round handgun mags (standard for those particular guns) and reloaded frequently. The Aurora shooter has a 100-round magazine that jammed, so he switched to some other gun. The Columbine shooters used a mix, ranging from double-barrel shotguns to guns with larger magazines. In none of these cases did the shooters meet any sort of resistance when changing magazines or weapons until the police arrived. The only situation where it might be relevant was the Tucson shooter, where he fumbled a reload and dropped the magazine and some attentive person grabbed it. If he was slightly further away or simply backed up while grabbing a fresh mag it wouldn't have really made any difference.

Yes, restricting magazine capacity could theoretically have some effect on mass shooters...but there's not really any evidence that backs up such ideas so there's no real justification for restricting them other than saying "I'm doing something!". There's zero justification for restricting capacities from 10 to 7 rounds. That's just asinine.
 
2013-01-15 03:32:24 PM  

electronicmaji: About farking time. While the national congress and senate may be broken and dysfunctional the new york senate is far from it.

This bill should be a national standard for all gun bills. I for one have had enought of crazy wackos and your creepy fetish leading to the deaths of thousands of americans.

fark you. And suck my big fat gun hating dick.


Nice. +1.

"creepy fetish" is spot-on.
 
2013-01-15 03:32:58 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg:
And what harm does banning flash suppressors do? Is there a reason you desire to be able to shoot at night without the flash being seen?


What harm do flash suppressors do? Do they make the weapon more dangerous?

No?

Then why go through the idiocy of banning them?
 
2013-01-15 03:34:31 PM  

electronicmaji: I don't farking care anymore the citizens of our country should seek permission to even be allowed to leave their homes following Newtown.

This country is shiat full if shiatizens and they should all be nuked off the map. Especially the south.

Im defecting to russia and china and as a nuclear physicist am going to make the bomb that will kill you all

fark YOU AMERICA


t2.gstatic.com
 
2013-01-15 03:36:04 PM  

sugar_fetus: Philip Francis Queeg:
And what harm does banning flash suppressors do? Is there a reason you desire to be able to shoot at night without the flash being seen?

What harm do flash suppressors do? Do they make the weapon more dangerous?

No?

Then why go through the idiocy of banning them?


Has there been a sensible any response to the reasoning behind banning bayonet lugs yet? Not to rehash if there has been, I'm curious.
 
2013-01-15 03:37:00 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.


>GUNS AREN'T THE PROBLEM! MENTAL HEALTH! MENTAL HEAAAAALLLLLTH!

>>Ok, here are some ways to address that end of it. Actual preventative measures, not after the fact check ups to verify that a killer had issues.

>OMG LIBERTIES
 
2013-01-15 03:39:30 PM  

State_College_Arsonist: By defining the Second Amendment as essentially worthless, of course the new bans and regulations won't infringe upon the right to bear arms. What a surprise.


Well that's the problem when you're talking about a document written when "bearing arms" was limited by the very fastest guns firing at a rate of 2-3 shots per minute... and that was in the hands of a quality soldier who drilled on the loading and firing of the guns as part of his job.

Also, even a casual reading of the 2nd amendment clearly suggests that the intent wasn't for everyone to go around with two shootin' irons at their side. It's about protecting the citizenry from a tyrannical government... not about protecting your one bedroom apartment from someone coming in through the fire escape. The idea seems to be that citizens would run and arm an organized militia that would serve to defend the town or city or state or whatever from corrupt men exercising the unilateral and self-serving power of say... a monarch.

This is not to say that people shouldn't be able to own guns under controlled circumstances with a decent reason (like hunters or target shooters). It's simply that the 2nd Amendment doesn't seem to suggest that the constitution protects any right of an individual to buy a gun just in case some crook tries to "make his day".
 
2013-01-15 03:43:50 PM  

sugar_fetus: Philip Francis Queeg:
And what harm does banning flash suppressors do? Is there a reason you desire to be able to shoot at night without the flash being seen?

What harm do flash suppressors do? Do they make the weapon more dangerous?

No?

Then why go through the idiocy of banning them?


They're not banning flash suppressors. They're banning weapons capable of taking flash suppressors, which is easier than naming off make and models of weapons.
 
2013-01-15 03:44:30 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.


Um, look it up. The flash surpressor is not to help conceal the shooter, it's to help the visibility for the shooter in low light conditions.
 
2013-01-15 03:46:23 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: sugar_fetus: Philip Francis Queeg:
And what harm does banning flash suppressors do? Is there a reason you desire to be able to shoot at night without the flash being seen?

What harm do flash suppressors do? Do they make the weapon more dangerous?

No?

Then why go through the idiocy of banning them?

They're not banning flash suppressors. They're banning weapons capable of taking flash suppressors, which is easier than naming off make and models of weapons.


Almost any firearm can have a flash suppressor. Its a little fiddly but that is placed at the end of a barrel.

Banning a firearm because it has a flash suppressor is about as effective as banning one because it has a bayonet lug.

Oh, wait...
 
2013-01-15 03:47:23 PM  

electronicmaji: 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.

I don't farking care anymore the citizens of our country should seek permission to even be allowed to leave their homes following Newtown.

This country is shiat full if shiatizens and they should all be nuked off the map. Especially the south.

Im defecting to russia and china and as a nuclear physicist am going to make the bomb that will kill you all

fark YOU AMERICA


Hey look!  It's exactly the kind of people that we don't want in this country!  You go on with your bad marshal law wanting self, and get the hell out.
 
2013-01-15 03:49:15 PM  

queezyweezel: electronicmaji: 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.

I don't farking care anymore the citizens of our country should seek permission to even be allowed to leave their homes following Newtown.

This country is shiat full if shiatizens and they should all be nuked off the map. Especially the south.

Im defecting to russia and china and as a nuclear physicist am going to make the bomb that will kill you all

fark YOU AMERICA

Hey look!  It's exactly the kind of people that we don't want in this country!  You go on with your bad marshal law wanting self, and get the hell out.


fark you too you coont muzzling ass maggot
 
2013-01-15 03:50:48 PM  

electronicmaji: fark you too you coont muzzling ass maggot


Muzzling a coont? I've never met one with teeth (yet). Seems that there could be a better usage of time.
 
2013-01-15 03:51:16 PM  

electronicmaji: queezyweezel: electronicmaji: 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.

I don't farking care anymore the citizens of our country should seek permission to even be allowed to leave their homes following Newtown.

This country is shiat full if shiatizens and they should all be nuked off the map. Especially the south.

Im defecting to russia and china and as a nuclear physicist am going to make the bomb that will kill you all

fark YOU AMERICA

Hey look!  It's exactly the kind of people that we don't want in this country!  You go on with your bad marshal law wanting self, and get the hell out.

fark you too you coont muzzling ass maggot


I'm going to tell your parents that you're using the family computer without their supervision again. You're in big trouble young man.
 
2013-01-15 03:56:28 PM  

electronicmaji: 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.

I don't farking care anymore the citizens of our country should seek permission to even be allowed to leave their homes following Newtown.

This country is shiat full if shiatizens and they should all be nuked off the map. Especially the south.

Im defecting to russia and china and as a nuclear physicist am going to make the bomb that will kill you all

fark YOU AMERICA


Ummm someone should report that poster before he shoots up a school....classic signs of an emotionally disturbed person.

You want people to under go mental evals.....man up and take responsibility and report this schmuck.

whos with me?


/crickets
//crickets
///amirite
 
2013-01-15 03:59:28 PM  

flux: Philip Francis Queeg: And what harm does banning flash suppressors do? Is there a reason you desire to be able to shoot at night without the flash being seen?

Well, looking at it practically as an owner of an about-to-be-illegal weapon, let's say you're trying to modify it so that it's legal. You could get a new, non-adjustable stock without a pistol grip, and remove or disable the bayonet mount, but because this new law is "one-feature", your weapon is still illegal, because of the flash suppressor. If it's threaded, that's ok -- remove it. If it's fixed, you either have to have some kind of shroud welded around it or have it chopped off, which might make your barrel too short to be legal. Or, I guess you could spend a couple hundred bucks on a new barrel.

It also makes a lot of target handguns illegal. I dunno, overall, I don't have a lot of problems with this law, I guess. But I think the mag cap is the only really effective part -- the rest just severely inconveniences gun owners without changing the effectiveness of the weapon. I guess I think if you want legislation to pass, it should be simple and not overly-inconvenient for owners, like a flat-out mag limit, rather than "now you have to spend eight hundred dollars re-building your no-longer-legal rifle to make it into a legal rifle that shoots the same bullets at the same rate of fire, but has to be held slightly differently."


If you register it within the year, it wouldn't be illegal.
 
2013-01-15 04:03:40 PM  

Mike_1962: flux: Philip Francis Queeg: And what harm does banning flash suppressors do? Is there a reason you desire to be able to shoot at night without the flash being seen?

Well, looking at it practically as an owner of an about-to-be-illegal weapon, let's say you're trying to modify it so that it's legal. You could get a new, non-adjustable stock without a pistol grip, and remove or disable the bayonet mount, but because this new law is "one-feature", your weapon is still illegal, because of the flash suppressor. If it's threaded, that's ok -- remove it. If it's fixed, you either have to have some kind of shroud welded around it or have it chopped off, which might make your barrel too short to be legal. Or, I guess you could spend a couple hundred bucks on a new barrel.

It also makes a lot of target handguns illegal. I dunno, overall, I don't have a lot of problems with this law, I guess. But I think the mag cap is the only really effective part -- the rest just severely inconveniences gun owners without changing the effectiveness of the weapon. I guess I think if you want legislation to pass, it should be simple and not overly-inconvenient for owners, like a flat-out mag limit, rather than "now you have to spend eight hundred dollars re-building your no-longer-legal rifle to make it into a legal rifle that shoots the same bullets at the same rate of fire, but has to be held slightly differently."

If you register it within the year, it wouldn't be illegal.


I haven't had time to read the full text.  Do they state how much the registration fees will be?
 
2013-01-15 04:13:09 PM  
I honestly starting to wonder if there are any types of gun regulations in terms of possession that could at least be agreed to in some fashion. Every time someone brings up something about what guns the general public should have access to, all I hear is "Well criminals will obviously ignore that, so why should we cripple the ability of law abiding citizens?"


I just want to know where the damn lines are, if there are any lines.
 
2013-01-15 04:13:29 PM  
the part that bothers me the most is the new "Office of Mental Hygiene". first thought. clean brain, as in brain washing dept??? hmm
 
2013-01-15 04:13:38 PM  

Mike_1962: flux: Philip Francis Queeg: And what harm does banning flash suppressors do? Is there a reason you desire to be able to shoot at night without the flash being seen?

Well, looking at it practically as an owner of an about-to-be-illegal weapon, let's say you're trying to modify it so that it's legal. You could get a new, non-adjustable stock without a pistol grip, and remove or disable the bayonet mount, but because this new law is "one-feature", your weapon is still illegal, because of the flash suppressor. If it's threaded, that's ok -- remove it. If it's fixed, you either have to have some kind of shroud welded around it or have it chopped off, which might make your barrel too short to be legal. Or, I guess you could spend a couple hundred bucks on a new barrel.

It also makes a lot of target handguns illegal. I dunno, overall, I don't have a lot of problems with this law, I guess. But I think the mag cap is the only really effective part -- the rest just severely inconveniences gun owners without changing the effectiveness of the weapon. I guess I think if you want legislation to pass, it should be simple and not overly-inconvenient for owners, like a flat-out mag limit, rather than "now you have to spend eight hundred dollars re-building your no-longer-legal rifle to make it into a legal rifle that shoots the same bullets at the same rate of fire, but has to be held slightly differently."

If you register it within the year, it wouldn't be illegal.


Until they change the law to cover some other arbitrary feature next year.
 
2013-01-15 04:17:13 PM  

BlueDWarrior: I honestly starting to wonder if there are any types of gun regulations in terms of possession that could at least be agreed to in some fashion. Every time someone brings up something about what guns the general public should have access to, all I hear is "Well criminals will obviously ignore that, so why should we cripple the ability of law abiding citizens?"


I just want to know where the damn lines are, if there are any lines.


You could always research the banning of fully automatic weapons (actual assault rifles), and grenades etc.
 
2013-01-15 04:18:43 PM  

Mike_1962: If you register it within the year, it wouldn't be illegal.


Ok, thanks. I also did not have time to read the full text. I also see options for re-sale after it goes into effect. I think I'm mostly okay with it, then.
 
2013-01-15 04:19:01 PM  
Abstaining -- courteously:

m.popstar.com
 
2013-01-15 04:23:01 PM  

queezyweezel: BlueDWarrior: I honestly starting to wonder if there are any types of gun regulations in terms of possession that could at least be agreed to in some fashion. Every time someone brings up something about what guns the general public should have access to, all I hear is "Well criminals will obviously ignore that, so why should we cripple the ability of law abiding citizens?"


I just want to know where the damn lines are, if there are any lines.

You could always research the banning of fully automatic weapons (actual assault rifles), and grenades etc.


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.

Also why isn't there talk on increasing police presence and trying to figure out some real long-term urban renewal projects in areas of major urban blight to help deal with the persistent issue of gang violence. Do we just not care about gun violence when it's black and brown people killing each other?
 
2013-01-15 04:24:20 PM  

queezyweezel: Mike_1962: flux: Philip Francis Queeg: And what harm does banning flash suppressors do? Is there a reason you desire to be able to shoot at night without the flash being seen?

Well, looking at it practically as an owner of an about-to-be-illegal weapon, let's say you're trying to modify it so that it's legal. You could get a new, non-adjustable stock without a pistol grip, and remove or disable the bayonet mount, but because this new law is "one-feature", your weapon is still illegal, because of the flash suppressor. If it's threaded, that's ok -- remove it. If it's fixed, you either have to have some kind of shroud welded around it or have it chopped off, which might make your barrel too short to be legal. Or, I guess you could spend a couple hundred bucks on a new barrel.

It also makes a lot of target handguns illegal. I dunno, overall, I don't have a lot of problems with this law, I guess. But I think the mag cap is the only really effective part -- the rest just severely inconveniences gun owners without changing the effectiveness of the weapon. I guess I think if you want legislation to pass, it should be simple and not overly-inconvenient for owners, like a flat-out mag limit, rather than "now you have to spend eight hundred dollars re-building your no-longer-legal rifle to make it into a legal rifle that shoots the same bullets at the same rate of fire, but has to be held slightly differently."

If you register it within the year, it wouldn't be illegal.

I haven't had time to read the full text.  Do they state how much the registration fees will be?


I just read the summary, in the article it doesn't say. Probably TBD.
 
2013-01-15 04:30:52 PM  
register? sure, I dont mind that. Being forced to pay for it? Sorry fark that, I dont have the money.
 
2013-01-15 04:32:17 PM  

sugar_fetus: cameroncrazy1984: sugar_fetus: Philip Francis Queeg:
And what harm does banning flash suppressors do? Is there a reason you desire to be able to shoot at night without the flash being seen?

What harm do flash suppressors do? Do they make the weapon more dangerous?

No?

Then why go through the idiocy of banning them?

They're not banning flash suppressors. They're banning weapons capable of taking flash suppressors, which is easier than naming off make and models of weapons.

Almost any firearm can have a flash suppressor. Its a little fiddly but that is placed at the end of a barrel.

Banning a firearm because it has a flash suppressor is about as effective as banning one because it has a bayonet lug.

Oh, wait...


You know who else hated it when Americans had bayonets?

i235.photobucket.com

/hot.
 
2013-01-15 04:35:26 PM  

Skraeling: register? sure, I dont mind that. Being forced to pay for it? Sorry fark that, I dont have the money.


better do it. they want you on that list. why? don't ask, citizen, just do as you're told.
 
2013-01-15 04:40:26 PM  

BlueDWarrior: I honestly starting to wonder if there are any types of gun regulations in terms of possession that could at least be agreed to in some fashion. Every time someone brings up something about what guns the general public should have access to, all I hear is "Well criminals will obviously ignore that, so why should we cripple the ability of law abiding citizens?"


I just want to know where the damn lines are, if there are any lines.


You'll notice that most people don't argue that point. Not because it is valid, but rather the exact opposite. It is an obvious logical fallacy that doesn't or at least shouldn't require a response. Oh, well, here goes a couple of points. Someone will become a criminal when they use a gun in a criminal way (assuming the absence of another crime.) The criminal to that point was a legal gun owner.

Advocating the position that a law is usless because criminals will not obey it is incorrect. Many criminals will obey it, at least in terms of usage, if not ownership since a law serves to deter a behaviour as well as to punish it.

Over time restrictions can significantly reduce the total number of illegal weapons through attrition if nothing else. This law unfortunately does not address a possible black market in weapons so the effects of attrition will be at best diluted by smuggling.
 
2013-01-15 04:43:51 PM  

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.

Since semi-auto AR-15s and other guns some people call "assault weapons" are the most commonly owned firearm in the US and are widely used in competition and for other perfectly legitimate purposes, there's a lot of people who are not happy about proposed restrictions, particularly when rifles of any kind (ARs and the like being a subset) are used in about 3.7% of all firearms-related homicide. Statistically speaking, such guns are a very minor issue.

Also why isn't there talk on increasing police presence and trying to figure out some real long-term urban renewal projects in areas of major urban blight to help deal with the persistent issue of gang violence. Do we just not care about gun violence when it's black and brown people killing each other?

That's one of the things that I've been writing to my legislators about for years. That's one of the major things (the others being ending the War on Drugs and treating personal drug use like a public health issue instead of a crime and going after drug/gun traffickers with a vengeance) I think that can actually make a difference. Restricting guns with black plastic bits or the size of a box with a spring in it seems pretty pointless -- that horse has already left the metaphorical barn and it's not coming back. There's no real correlation between "strict gun laws" in the US and "less crime".

In short: the best way to reduce violent crime is to keep people from feeling they need to commit it. Healthy, stable, well-adjusted, and prosperous people don't commit violent crimes (or, if they do, it's a statistical rarity).
 
2013-01-15 04:43:53 PM  

ThreeFootSmurf: the part that bothers me the most is the new "Office of Mental Hygiene". first thought. clean brain, as in brain washing dept??? hmm


Yeah, that's kind of Orwellian, gotta say.
 
2013-01-15 04:44:55 PM  

Marine1: Philip Francis Queeg: 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.

And what harm does banning flash suppressors do? Is there a reason you desire to be able to shoot at night without the flash being seen?

Flash suppressors don't just hide the flash from other people, they hide it from you. If you're waking up to someone in your house at 3:00 AM, and end up firing on that person, you can be temporarily blinded by muzzle flash. This is a problem when you're trying to control a threat.
Overall, it's not really a big deal to have one on a firearm, and they don't make a weapon any more or less lethal in the situations this legislation is meant to prevent. It's another example of people not knowing what they're dealing with when it comes to firearms.


Also muzzle breaks are used on some hunting rifles to manage recoil better.
 
2013-01-15 04:45:45 PM  

Lost Thought 00: I think the bullet(s) you just fired at another human being with the intention of murdering them would have a bigger impact on your home defense situation than any temporary blindness


Nice weasel words, but absolutely correct on the intent part. I don't see why that's a problem.
 
wee
2013-01-15 04:49:10 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Hunting rifles have no need for any of those things, thus a ban on the characteristics of a military-style weapon makes sense.


What does hunting have to do with anything at all?  That makes no sense at all.
 
2013-01-15 04:51:06 PM  
The second amendment isn't to protect hunting...
 
2013-01-15 04:52:01 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.

Since semi-auto AR-15s and other guns some people call "assault weapons" are the most commonly owned firearm in the US and are widely used in competition and for other perfectly legitimate purposes, there's a lot of people who are not happy about proposed restrictions, particularly when rifles of any kind (ARs and the like being a subset) are used in about 3.7% of all firearms-related homicide. Statistically speaking, such guns are a very minor issue.

Also why isn't there talk on increasing police presence and trying to figure out some real long-term urban renewal projects in areas of major urban blight to help deal with the persistent issue of gang violence. Do we just not care about gun violence when it's black and brown people killing each other?

That's one of the things that I've been writing to my legislators about for years. That's one of the major things (the others being ending the War on Drugs and treating personal drug use like a public health issue instead of a crime and going after drug/gun traffickers with a vengeance) I think that can actually make a difference. Restricting guns with black plastic bits or the size of a box with a spring in it seems pretty pointless -- that horse has already left the metaphorical barn and it's not coming back. There's no real correlation between "strict gun laws" in the US and "less crime".

In short: the best way to reduce violent crime is to keep people from feeling they need to commit it. Healthy, stable, well-adjusted, and prosperous people don't commit violent crimes (or, if they do, it's a statistical rarity).


Well put.
 
2013-01-15 04:52:05 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: >GUNS AREN'T THE PROBLEM! MENTAL HEALTH! MENTAL HEAAAAALLLLLTH!

>>Ok, here are some ways to address that end of it. Actual preventative measures, not after the fact check ups to verify that a killer had issues.

>OMG LIBERTIES


I can't tell what you mean here. Can you clarify?
 
2013-01-15 04:52:29 PM  

Thingster: Mike_1962: flux: Philip Francis Queeg: And what harm does banning flash suppressors do? Is there a reason you desire to be able to shoot at night without the flash being seen?

Well, looking at it practically as an owner of an about-to-be-illegal weapon, let's say you're trying to modify it so that it's legal. You could get a new, non-adjustable stock without a pistol grip, and remove or disable the bayonet mount, but because this new law is "one-feature", your weapon is still illegal, because of the flash suppressor. If it's threaded, that's ok -- remove it. If it's fixed, you either have to have some kind of shroud welded around it or have it chopped off, which might make your barrel too short to be legal. Or, I guess you could spend a couple hundred bucks on a new barrel.

It also makes a lot of target handguns illegal. I dunno, overall, I don't have a lot of problems with this law, I guess. But I think the mag cap is the only really effective part -- the rest just severely inconveniences gun owners without changing the effectiveness of the weapon. I guess I think if you want legislation to pass, it should be simple and not overly-inconvenient for owners, like a flat-out mag limit, rather than "now you have to spend eight hundred dollars re-building your no-longer-legal rifle to make it into a legal rifle that shoots the same bullets at the same rate of fire, but has to be held slightly differently."

If you register it within the year, it wouldn't be illegal.

Until they change the law to cover some other arbitrary feature next year.


Given that as a possibility, why would a group of elected reps spend the capital? Personally, I agree that a bayonet lug restriction is foolish and would remove it however, one of the points to legislation like this should be to removee some of the romance of gun ownership which is responsible at least in part for the prevalence of guns in your culture.
 
2013-01-15 04:53:10 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Hunting rifles have no need for any of those things


Says who?

What's wrong with an adjustable stock? That's a shooter-comfort/ergonomics thing. Same thing with the pistol grip. A muzzle brake helps reduce felt recoil, which is particularly useful with large-caliber hunting cartridges. Those are all ideal for hunting rifles and indeed, many hunting rifles come with such features.

Nearly all of the "military features" are in wide use on any number of common firearms, including those marketed towards hunters.

Of course, it's worth pointing out that most gun owners aren't hunters, and hunting isn't the only legitimate use of firearms -- recreational, sporting, and competitive shooting are perfectly valid uses of firearms. Many hunting firearms can be used for those purposes, but not all are particularly suited to those purposes.
 
2013-01-15 04:56:47 PM  
The point is that people are upset and scared and we need to pass something NOW, with minimal review and no discussion of the implications of the law.
 
2013-01-15 05:01:17 PM  

ko_kyi: The point is that people are upset and scared and we need to pass something NOW, with minimal review and no discussion of the implications of the law.


basically this, legislation will get passed that does nothing except cost more money and time.
 
2013-01-15 05:03:38 PM  

chasd00: ko_kyi: The point is that people are upset and scared and we need to pass something NOW, with minimal review and no discussion of the implications of the law.

basically this, legislation will get passed that does nothing except cost more money and time.


"Something must be done! This is something, therefore it must be done!"
 
2013-01-15 05:04:57 PM  

chasd00: basically this, legislation will get passed that does nothing except cost more money and time.


It does more than that. Don't forget blatant violation of the constitutional right to due process when a simple report form a "helathcare proffesional" can send the police to your home to confiscate every legal firearm you own.
 
2013-01-15 05:05:29 PM  

chasd00: ko_kyi: The point is that people are upset and scared and we need to pass something NOW, with minimal review and no discussion of the implications of the law.

basically this, legislation will get passed that does nothing except cost more money and time.


actually it's worse than that because it provides a false sense of security
 
2013-01-15 05:08:03 PM  
So would all the defenders of states rights please step up and defend the right of NYS to make its own laws?
 
2013-01-15 05:08:18 PM  

heypete: chasd00: ko_kyi: The point is that people are upset and scared and we need to pass something NOW, with minimal review and no discussion of the implications of the law.

basically this, legislation will get passed that does nothing except cost more money and time.

"Something must be done! This is something, therefore it must be done!"


Holy underwear! Sheriff murdered! Innocent women and children blown to bits! We have to protect our phoney baloney jobs here, gentlemen! We must do something about this immediately! Immediately! Immediately! Harrumph! Harrumph! Harrumph!
 
2013-01-15 05:10:42 PM  

Warlordtrooper: So would all the defenders of states rights please step up and defend the right of NYS to make its own laws?


I will.

Of course, the Second has been incorporated (McDonald v Chicago), so even States must abide by it.
 
2013-01-15 05:10:56 PM  
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.
 
2013-01-15 05:12:14 PM  

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.
 
2013-01-15 05:17:19 PM  

Warlordtrooper: So would all the defenders of states rights please step up and defend the right of NYS to make its own laws?


State Rights does not trump the Consititutional Rights. If this was not a federal protection - I would say go for it.
 
2013-01-15 05:19:51 PM  

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.


Just as applicable
 
2013-01-15 05:20:06 PM  

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?
 
2013-01-15 05:24:01 PM  
nys

can't it just be NY? what other state does this bullshiat
 
2013-01-15 05:24:38 PM  

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.
 
2013-01-15 05:25:44 PM  

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?
 
2013-01-15 05:32:09 PM  

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.
 
2013-01-15 05:32:17 PM  

heypete: chasd00: ko_kyi: The point is that people are upset and scared and we need to pass something NOW, with minimal review and no discussion of the implications of the law.

basically this, legislation will get passed that does nothing except cost more money and time.

"Something must be done! This is something, therefore it must be done!"


THERE IS A TIME TO ACT, AND A TIME TO THINK.
GENTLEMEN, THIS IS NO TIME TO THINK.
 
2013-01-15 05:32:26 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: 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.

Look, the point of it is to ban weapons that are military in nature. Hunting rifles have no need for any of those things, thus a ban on the characteristics of a military-style weapon makes sense.


Says who buttercup?

Mossber ATR
Savage 110F

Just 2 off the top of my head.

I'm happy with Canada's 10rd restriction for handguns, would like to see the same for long guns (currently 5rds for all semi autos except .22lrs).

I also wouldn't mind a limited, regulated concealed carry system.

For anyone who thinks that banning all guns is the only solution I invite you to take a look at the the Czech Republic. Very liberal gun laws, similar to the US, (I think). And yet their rate of gun related deaths per capita is a fraction of the Unites States', and even less than Canada's.

United States 10.2/100000
Canada 2.13/100000
Czech Republic 1.76/100000

Sources

Link

Link

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.

Anyways, make of it what you will, I think that both sides are fear mongering and denigrating the other side for their own purposes. Just becuase you want to have/carry a gun with a 10-15 rd mag, does not mean that you are a pants pissing coward, gun fetishist. And just because you want to take reasonable, well thought out steps to ensure the safety of the general public, does not mean that you are a facist, orwellian overlord who doesn't understand firearms. Of course if people on both sides of the debate would stop fulfilling these cairactures, then your chances of a rational discussion would improve.
 
2013-01-15 05:34:08 PM  

HeadLever: Warlordtrooper: So would all the defenders of states rights please step up and defend the right of NYS to make its own laws?

State Rights does not trump the Consititutional Rights. If this was not a federal protection - I would say go for it.


Do crazy people still have Constitutional Rights? Its one thing if you have been convicted of a crime but how can anyone advocate taking away guns from a crazy person if that person hasn't been convicted of a crime yet?
 
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.
 
2013-01-16 12:24:03 PM  

xxcorydxx: sandy hook was a little fishy,


What do you mean?
 
2013-01-16 02:08:43 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.

Military weapons platform - should not be owned by civilians.
www.khakicorpsimports.com

Okay for civilians to own.
www.hamiltonsclassicautos.com
 
2013-01-16 02:40:20 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: xxcorydxx: sandy hook was a little fishy,

What do you mean?


I'm not big on conspiracy theories, but the way that all the parents spoke when interviewed was really off- go back and watch some of the interviews, the way that some of the newscasts don't quite line up, that guy that had the 6 kids in his house even though he lived on the other side of the firehouse and he's in the actors guild. there were 600 kids in the school and you don't see any of them from the aerial news shots.

the fundraiser site was started before it even happened, too.
 
2013-01-16 02:41:33 PM  

HeadLever: 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.


pretty sure you're free to own as many muskets as you'd like, just as the founding fathers intended.
 
2013-01-16 03:20:43 PM  

xxcorydxx: HeadLever: 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.

pretty sure you're free to own as many muskets as you'd like, just as the founding fathers intended.


Yeah, I still can't find the word 'muskets' in the 2nd Amendment. Of course, i can't find the word 'internet' or 'television' in the 1st Amendment.

Can you help me out and show me where they are?
 
2013-01-16 03:48:39 PM  

sugar_fetus: xxcorydxx: HeadLever: 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.

pretty sure you're free to own as many muskets as you'd like, just as the founding fathers intended.

Yeah, I still can't find the word 'muskets' in the 2nd Amendment. Of course, i can't find the word 'internet' or 'television' in the 1st Amendment.

Can you help me out and show me where they are?


are you really that stupid or do you think that George Washington intended for everyone to have their own personal nuclear arsenal? also, did you miss the words "regulated" and "militia" ?

ps, if you answer that no, please tell me what YOU think is an acceptable weapon vs an unacceptable weapon.
 
2013-01-16 04:13:10 PM  

xxcorydxx: are you really that stupid


Nice - right to the personal insults. That's usually shows that you have no actual response. Thats the way to talk to people - insult them.

or do you think that George Washington intended for everyone to have their own personal nuclear arsenal?

Strawman. I never mentioned nuclear weapons.

also, did you miss the words "regulated" and "militia" ?

Did you miss the word 'the right of the people'? What does that mean?

ps, if you answer that no, please tell me what YOU think is an acceptable weapon vs an unacceptable weapon.

Unnecessary. I am not the one advocating the infringement of your constitutionally-protected rights.

Overall, I'll give you a 2/10 for your message. The personal insult was nice, but not effective. next time, try to work in a penis reference. That will increase your grade.
 
2013-01-16 04:29:05 PM  

sugar_fetus: xxcorydxx: are you really that stupid

Nice - right to the personal insults. That's usually shows that you have no actual response. Thats the way to talk to people - insult them.

or do you think that George Washington intended for everyone to have their own personal nuclear arsenal?

Strawman. I never mentioned nuclear weapons.

also, did you miss the words "regulated" and "militia" ?

Did you miss the word 'the right of the people'? What does that mean?

ps, if you answer that no, please tell me what YOU think is an acceptable weapon vs an unacceptable weapon.

Unnecessary. I am not the one advocating the infringement of your constitutionally-protected rights.

Overall, I'll give you a 2/10 for your message. The personal insult was nice, but not effective. next time, try to work in a penis reference. That will increase your grade.


You conservatives are so cute when you don't get your way
 
2013-01-16 04:34:22 PM  

xxcorydxx: sugar_fetus: xxcorydxx: are you really that stupid

Nice - right to the personal insults. That's usually shows that you have no actual response. Thats the way to talk to people - insult them.

or do you think that George Washington intended for everyone to have their own personal nuclear arsenal?

Strawman. I never mentioned nuclear weapons.

also, did you miss the words "regulated" and "militia" ?

Did you miss the word 'the right of the people'? What does that mean?

ps, if you answer that no, please tell me what YOU think is an acceptable weapon vs an unacceptable weapon.

Unnecessary. I am not the one advocating the infringement of your constitutionally-protected rights.

Overall, I'll give you a 2/10 for your message. The personal insult was nice, but not effective. next time, try to work in a penis reference. That will increase your grade.

You conservatives are so cute when you don't get your way


Me? A conservative? Wrong-o, buddy. That just looses you another point.

Also, I noticed that you didn't actually address anything I said, you merely went directly for the personal insult again. You really need to get better materials. More thought, less derp.

New grade: 1/10. Try harder, child, or you'll just have to repeat this grade.
 
2013-01-16 04:42:49 PM  

xxcorydxx: sugar_fetus: xxcorydxx: HeadLever: 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.

pretty sure you're free to own as many muskets as you'd like, just as the founding fathers intended.

Yeah, I still can't find the word 'muskets' in the 2nd Amendment. Of course, i can't find the word 'internet' or 'television' in the 1st Amendment.

Can you help me out and show me where they are?

are you really that stupid or do you think that George Washington intended for everyone to have their own personal nuclear arsenal? also, did you miss the words "regulated" and "militia" ?

ps, if you answer that no, please tell me what YOU think is an acceptable weapon vs an unacceptable weapon.


Do you think George Washington wanted the government to fear the people?  Then wouldn't the logical extension be to allow a weapons platform that puts the people on par with at least the local police force?
 
2013-01-16 04:45:10 PM  
It "looses" me a point? Are you sure you aren't a teabagger?

There weren't semiautomatic weapons with high capacity clips, just the same as there weren't nuclear weapons when the bill of rights was written. "well regulated" was supposed to cover that whole part.

If you don't like what the laws are here, move somewhere else or work to change the laws and quit crying like a little girl that had her barbie taken away.
 
2013-01-16 04:51:57 PM  

xxcorydxx: It "looses" me a point? Are you sure you aren't a teabagger?

There weren't semiautomatic weapons with high capacity clips, just the same as there weren't nuclear weapons when the bill of rights was written. "well regulated" was supposed to cover that whole part.

If you don't like what the laws are here, move somewhere else or work to change the laws and quit crying like a little girl that had her barbie taken away.


Well regulated has absolutely nothing to do with the arms, and everything to do with the militia.  You're an idiot.  Are you honestly saying that the founding fathers thought hmm..the people should have a flint lock rifle, but not laser beams?
 
2013-01-16 04:52:01 PM  

xxcorydxx: pretty sure you're free to own as many muskets as you'd like, just as the founding fathers intended.


Arms != muskets. Nice try though.
 
2013-01-16 04:54:28 PM  

xxcorydxx: "well regulated" was supposed to cover that whole part.


The SCotUS disagrees. What part of 'the prefatory clause does not limit or bind, in any way, the operative clause' don't you get?

If you don't like what the laws are here, move somewhere else or work to change the laws and quit crying like a little girl that had her barbie taken away.
 
2013-01-16 04:55:20 PM  

xxcorydxx: It "looses" me a point? Are you sure you aren't a teabagger?


Again with the insults. Tsk, tsk.

There weren't semiautomatic weapons with high capacity clips, just the same as there weren't nuclear weapons when the bill of rights was written. "well regulated" was supposed to cover that whole part.

There wasn't television or an internet, either. Why did they write "right of the people" if they meant "right of the States" or "right of the militiaman"? These were educated men. They knew how to write.

If you don't like what the laws are here, move somewhere else or work to change the laws and quit crying like a little girl that had her barbie taken away.

The laws say I can own a semi-automatic AR-15 style rifle with standard-sized magazines. That is what the law says right now.

If you don't like it - why don't *you* move instead? Follow your own advice.

Or, at least stop insulting people who disagree with you.

Yeah, another point lost. 0/10.
 
2013-01-16 04:57:04 PM  

xxcorydxx: are you really that stupid or do you think that George Washington intended for everyone to have their own personal nuclear arsenal?


There is a legal distinction between descriminant and indescrininant weapons. You may want to look into it.
 
2013-01-16 05:02:28 PM  
Arms were muskets...

Given that police now have decommissioned tanks and things of that nature (which conservatives love, because they use them to put black drug users in jail) are you suggesting that we should all have anti tank missiles? That would be interesting.
 
2013-01-16 05:21:40 PM  

xxcorydxx: Arms were muskets...


Muskets were and are only a subset of arms. Kind of like saying free speech is ink printed news.
 
2013-01-16 05:23:31 PM  

HeadLever: are you suggesting that we should all have anti tank missiles?


See my point on descriminant vs indescriminant weapons and get back to me on this..
 
2013-01-16 05:26:00 PM  
Linky fail. Above post should have been adressed to xxcorydxx
 
2013-01-16 06:21:52 PM  

xxcorydxx:
1) I'm not big on conspiracy theories,

2) but the way that all the parents spoke when interviewed was really off- go back and watch some of the interviews, the way that some of the newscasts don't quite line up, that guy that had the 6 kids in his house even though he lived on the other side of the firehouse and he's in the actors guild. there were 600 kids in the school and you don't see any of them from the aerial news shots.

the fundraiser site was started before it even happened, too.


Everything in part 2 contradicts part 1.

Also, CITE for the fundraiser starting BEFORE the shooting?
 
2013-01-16 09:45:36 PM  

HeadLever: xxcorydxx: are you really that stupid or do you think that George Washington intended for everyone to have their own personal nuclear arsenal?

There is a legal distinction between descriminant and indescrininant weapons. You may want to look into it.


in the bill of rights? with a list? show me.
 
2013-01-16 10:53:09 PM  

xxcorydxx: in the bill of rights?


Not every law or legal definition is detailed in the Bill of Rights. You are having a hard time with this aren't you?
 
2013-01-16 11:10:12 PM  

HeadLever: xxcorydxx: in the bill of rights?

Not every law or legal definition is detailed in the Bill of Rights. You are having a hard time with this aren't you?


apparently you are, since you're losing. maybe replace your assault weapon with a penis pump.
 
2013-01-17 12:13:53 PM  

xxcorydxx: HeadLever: xxcorydxx: in the bill of rights?

Not every law or legal definition is detailed in the Bill of Rights. You are having a hard time with this aren't you?

apparently you are, since you're losing. maybe replace your assault weapon with a penis pump.


Back to ad hominem attacks in lieu of actual arguments, I see.

/10 year old typing detected
 
2013-01-17 03:05:43 PM  

sugar_fetus: 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.

Military weapons platform - should not be owned by civilians.
[www.khakicorpsimports.com image 600x450]

Okay for civilians to own.
[www.hamiltonsclassicautos.com image 432x324]


That is a borderline case, that looks to me like a range truck or a hunting truck painted by a hick. However, if it was a Jeep or a Hummer in camo and fitted with battlefield kit, than I would say yes, it is ABSOLUTELY NOT OKAY for a civilian to drive it around in everyday use. If I see a vehicle like that ( I live two blocks afrom a large National Guard base fyi) I assume the driver is a member of the military engaged in military business and under certain circumstances, it would scare the crap out of me to see it in the wrong place.

If i brought my kids to the mall and there were a bunch of transports and jeeps parked there, I would assume some bad shiat was going down, and I would flee. If I see a civilian driving one, or carrying weapons and gear that mimic those seen in the theater of war, I am scared of that person, because I assume he is a farking lunatic that actually likes the prospect of a battlefield scenario, and he wants that to happen.

These weapons are not appropriate for civilians and they should be removed from the populace unless good reason and proper safeguards are enacted. That is a moral judgment i am making and you can like it or lump it.

You should have your damned dangerous toys taken away and you should treat firearms and the use of them with more respect.
 
2013-01-17 03:13:44 PM  

willfullyobscure:
You should have your damned dangerous toys taken away and you should treat firearms and the use of them with more respect.


It's a farking truck. And yes, it is a military surplus CUCV. And no, some hick did not paint it.
It's a military weapon. The difference between the two is nothing but the paint job.

Still, its good to see that you believe its okay to ban things due to cosmetic differences that scares you

Don't like it? Don't own one. It's still legal to own.

Oh, and so are these:

Tanks for sale
 
2013-01-17 03:59:29 PM  

sugar_fetus: willfullyobscure:
You should have your damned dangerous toys taken away and you should treat firearms and the use of them with more respect.

It's a farking truck. And yes, it is a military surplus CUCV. And no, some hick did not paint it.
It's a military weapon. The difference between the two is nothing but the paint job.

Still, its good to see that you believe its okay to ban things due to cosmetic differences that scares you

Don't like it? Don't own one. It's still legal to own.

Oh, and so are these:

Tanks for sale


A truck is not a weapon, so you lose that point.

I reiterate, that's a borderline case and it IS a matter of appearances. That truck APPEARS TO BE a hickmobile, not a farking Bradley FV. The appearance of weapons and tools designed for the battlefield DO NOT BELONG in civilian hands.

This is not a magical out of nowhere argument I making. We don't let regular people dress like or drive around in cop cars and fire trucks or ambulances just cause they like the look of it either. You get arrested for that shiat, for good reason.

As a society, we set very clear limits on what is okay to look like and how act, and these preclude running around with toy battlefield replica weapons and accessories. I suppose we can make some exception for re-enactors, since those dudes appear to actually understand the concept of a battlefield scenario versus going about your normal life and they actively admit they're playing dress up.

This isn't Israel or Mexico some other state under immediate duress. You're not a soldier or a civilian militiaman. I see National Guards on parade with their weapons every freakin' weekend and I have no problem with them strapping up ARs.You're a puke with vile, hateful blood fantasies you get a hard on pretending you're a bad ass. And you get no respect from actual grown ups because of it. You don't need those weapons and you shouldn't have them. There is literally no justification for them except to play pretend, or maybe shoot a hell of a lot of people in a very short amount of time. And wild hog hunting, I guess you can have that one, too.
 
2013-01-17 04:05:20 PM  

willfullyobscure:
A truck is not a weapon, so you lose that point.


Yet, you think its scary and dangerous.

Also, it is not a 'hickmobile'. It's a military surplus truck.

http://www.khakicorpsimports.com/in-cucv.htm

so, you loose that point.


You're a puke with vile, hateful blood fantasies you get a hard on pretending you're a bad ass. And you get no respect from actual grown ups because of it. You don't need those weapons and you shouldn't have them


Well, thank you for popping in and telling everyone how to life their lives.

Are you incapable of having a discussion without resorting to insulting those you disagree with?

Maybe you need to get professional help.
 
2013-01-17 10:55:04 PM  

sugar_fetus: willfullyobscure:
A truck is not a weapon, so you lose that point.


Yet, you think its scary and dangerous.

Also, it is not a 'hickmobile'. It's a military surplus truck.

http://www.khakicorpsimports.com/in-cucv.htm

so, you loose that point.


You're a puke with vile, hateful blood fantasies you get a hard on pretending you're a bad ass. And you get no respect from actual grown ups because of it. You don't need those weapons and you shouldn't have them

Well, thank you for popping in and telling everyone how to life their lives.

Are you incapable of having a discussion without resorting to insulting those you disagree with?

Maybe you need to get professional help.


sugar_fetus: willfullyobscure:
A truck is not a weapon, so you lose that point.


Yet, you think its scary and dangerous.

Also, it is not a 'hickmobile'. It's a military surplus truck.

http://www.khakicorpsimports.com/in-cucv.htm

so, you loose that point.


You're a puke with vile, hateful blood fantasies you get a hard on pretending you're a bad ass. And you get no respect from actual grown ups because of it. You don't need those weapons and you shouldn't have them

Well, thank you for popping in and telling everyone how to life their lives.

Are you incapable of having a discussion without resorting to insulting those you disagree with?

Maybe you need to get professional help.


It's because I am a troll.
 
2013-01-17 11:09:05 PM  

willfullyobscure: It's because I am a troll.


Of that, I have had no doubt.
 
Displayed 231 of 231 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report