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.

(NYPost)   NY state lawmakers rush a gun-control law through that prohibits the sale of magazines that can hold more than seven bullets without checking to see if anybody makes seven-bullet magazines   (nypost.com) divider line 219
    More: Fail, New York, school massacre, Chris W. Cox, Andrew Cuomo  
•       •       •

2004 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Mar 2013 at 12:05 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-03-22 11:57:55 AM
Woohoo!!! M1911s for everybody!!!!!
 
2013-03-22 11:59:28 AM
Granted I'm a bit slow, but why do they have to put a hold on the measure? Are they changing it to 6 or 8? What is happening? Why can't they still keep it at 7?
 
2013-03-22 12:06:47 PM
Subby and the Post are apparently unfamiliar with the mathematical concept of "greater than"
 
2013-03-22 12:07:47 PM
Imagine that: politicians trying to legislate stuff about which they are wholly ignorant. Color me shocked.
 
2013-03-22 12:08:15 PM
I heard the compromise being floated is that you can own a 10-round magazine, but you can't put more than 7 rounds in it.
 
2013-03-22 12:10:19 PM
It wouldn't be hard to turn 10 round magazines into 7's, just need a plastic filler at the bottom. You know, an easily removed plastic filler.
 
2013-03-22 12:10:57 PM
People, such as Wilson Combat, make 7 round magazines. And like hardinparamedic said, these are usually for a M1911.
 
2013-03-22 12:11:14 PM

Car_Ramrod: Granted I'm a bit slow, but why do they have to put a hold on the measure? Are they changing it to 6 or 8? What is happening? Why can't they still keep it at 7?


Because 7 is the largest number in the universe so it is impossible to have magazine that holds that number of bullets or more.
 
2013-03-22 12:11:16 PM

CPennypacker: Subby and the Post are apparently unfamiliar with the mathematical concept of "greater than"


That's really all there is to say about this.
 
2013-03-22 12:11:32 PM
Which means that Charlton Heston's cold, dead hands are automatically president and Obama has to spend the next four years hunting grizzly bears with Trunk Palin.
 
2013-03-22 12:11:57 PM
Good. Any legislation that can actually be passed is a start. This is getting out of control.

Btw: 2883 gun deaths in the US since Newtown.
 
2013-03-22 12:12:20 PM
Right, because if they had spec'd greater than 8, 7 round magazines wouldn't be on shelves next month. Nice try at the savage burn, subby and Post-tards, but no banana. Plenty to be mad about, don't make your position look stupid by regressing to jr. high "logic" traps.
 
2013-03-22 12:13:24 PM

hardinparamedic: Woohoo!!! M1911s for everybody!!!!!


M1911: For those rare times when you don't have a shotgun.

/Just this once, I'll admit that it's difficult to find a good holster for a 12GA.
 
2013-03-22 12:15:27 PM
good for businesses that are now going to make 7 shot magazines that everyone now has to buy?
 
2013-03-22 12:16:23 PM
"Rushed" meaning the gun lobby failed to halt it.
 
2013-03-22 12:17:09 PM
Can't they just get the phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range instead?
 
2013-03-22 12:18:19 PM
Adopt Canadian gun laws already. Sheesh.
 
2013-03-22 12:18:31 PM

Car_Ramrod: Granted I'm a bit slow, but why do they have to put a hold on the measure? Are they changing it to 6 or 8? What is happening? Why can't they still keep it at 7?


'Cause no one makes 7-round magazines, so this becomes a "back door" ban on all new magazine sales (at least until someone is arsed to design new mags for that massive NY market) and therefore a viable claim can be made in court that the law is overly restrictive.

Gov. Cuomo earlier suggested that 10-round magazines be allowed, but New Yorkers would be legally required to load no more than seven bullets into the magazine.  Lulz aside, the problem with this is that it would only impact law-abiding gun owners (as the criminal elements would undoubtedly top-up) and makes obvious the fact that this law is not about reducing gun violence, but about making guns no fun to shoot.
 
2013-03-22 12:18:40 PM

vygramul: Imagine that: politicians trying to legislate stuff about which they are wholly ignorant. Color me shocked.


and what color is that?
 
2013-03-22 12:18:43 PM
Was it Blazing Saddles where one of the characters said something like "Seven shots?!  What do you think this is a western?!"  Or was it something else?
 
2013-03-22 12:19:06 PM
Fortunately, the prohibition upon semi-automatic rifles featuring pistol grips or threaded barrels will be unaffected, as any educated individual knows that rifles with such features are inherently more dangerous.
 
2013-03-22 12:20:10 PM

HotWingConspiracy: "Rushed" meaning the gun lobby failed to halt it.


Sure buddy.
 
2013-03-22 12:21:27 PM

HotWingConspiracy: "Rushed" meaning the gun lobby failed to halt it.


No he pretty much wiped his *** w/ the democratic process in NY and forced a bill through w/o any debate screaming think of the children!!!!!
 
2013-03-22 12:21:32 PM

qorkfiend: I heard the compromise being floated is that you can own a 10-round magazine, but you can't put more than 7 rounds in it.


Which, as an anti-gun nut, is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
 
2013-03-22 12:21:35 PM

Dimensio: Fortunately, the prohibition upon semi-automatic rifles featuring pistol grips or threaded barrels will be unaffected, as any educated individual knows that rifles with such features are inherently more dangerous.


Don't forget about the barrel shroud
 
2013-03-22 12:21:55 PM
Even my old Ruger 10/22 has a stock 10 round mag.
 
2013-03-22 12:22:54 PM

DrRatchet: Car_Ramrod: Granted I'm a bit slow, but why do they have to put a hold on the measure? Are they changing it to 6 or 8? What is happening? Why can't they still keep it at 7?

'Cause no one makes 7-round magazines, so this becomes a "back door" ban on all new magazine sales (at least until someone is arsed to design new mags for that massive NY market) and therefore a viable claim can be made in court that the law is overly restrictive.

Gov. Cuomo earlier suggested that 10-round magazines be allowed, but New Yorkers would be legally required to load no more than seven bullets into the magazine.  Lulz aside, the problem with this is that it would only impact law-abiding gun owners (as the criminal elements would undoubtedly top-up) and makes obvious the fact that this law is not about reducing gun violence, but about making guns no fun to shoot.


Would loading seven rounds into a magazine, loading the magazine into a firearm, loading one of the cartridges into the firearm chamber, removing the firearm, adding an additional cartridge to the magazine (bringing its total back to seven) and reloading the magazine into the firearm (thus enabling a total of eight rounds to be fired before reloading) be prohibited under the statute?

Are the authors of the SAFE act sufficiently knowledgeable of firearms technology to even comprehend and account for such an occurrence?
 
2013-03-22 12:23:06 PM
I can keep my recurve right? I only carry 6 arrows in the quiver
 
2013-03-22 12:23:56 PM

soia: vygramul: Imagine that: politicians trying to legislate stuff about which they are wholly ignorant. Color me shocked.

and what color is that?


It's a very different color from "there" - about 100 THz different in wavelength.
 
2013-03-22 12:24:16 PM

cram_hole: Can't they just get the phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range instead?


i47.tinypic.com
 
2013-03-22 12:24:23 PM

DrRatchet: Car_Ramrod: Granted I'm a bit slow, but why do they have to put a hold on the measure? Are they changing it to 6 or 8? What is happening? Why can't they still keep it at 7?

'Cause no one makes 7-round magazines, so this becomes a "back door" ban on all new magazine sales (at least until someone is arsed to design new mags for that massive NY market) and therefore a viable claim can be made in court that the law is overly restrictive.


But, couldn't they still make 6-round magazines? Or start making 7-round magazines?

Gov. Cuomo earlier suggested that 10-round magazines be allowed, but New Yorkers would be legally required to load no more than seven bullets into the magazine.  Lulz aside

Agreed, that's f'n stupid.

the problem with this is that it would only impact law-abiding gun owners (as the criminal elements would undoubtedly top-up) and makes obvious the fact that this law is not about reducing gun violence, but about making guns no fun to shoot.

Yes, laws only affect people that abide by the laws. Thank you for pointing out that concept. Why even have laws, amiright? People keep on murdering each other, why even make it illegal?
 
2013-03-22 12:25:52 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: M1911: For those rare times when you don't have a shotgun.


Don't laugh, y'all. Here in Kalifornia, when the congress-critters passed a ten-round magazine limit, sales of '45's and other big-bore pistols rose, along with the super-small (and easy to conceal) pocket pistols. Full-size 9mm's aren't selling like they used to. 380's are so unpopular that even the preppers leave the ammo on store shelves.

SO, yah, mag restrictions == BIGGER BULLETS.
 
2013-03-22 12:26:05 PM
www.nypost.com
 
2013-03-22 12:26:55 PM

Car_Ramrod: DrRatchet: Car_Ramrod: Granted I'm a bit slow, but why do they have to put a hold on the measure? Are they changing it to 6 or 8? What is happening? Why can't they still keep it at 7?

'Cause no one makes 7-round magazines, so this becomes a "back door" ban on all new magazine sales (at least until someone is arsed to design new mags for that massive NY market) and therefore a viable claim can be made in court that the law is overly restrictive.

But, couldn't they still make 6-round magazines? Or start making 7-round magazines?

Gov. Cuomo earlier suggested that 10-round magazines be allowed, but New Yorkers would be legally required to load no more than seven bullets into the magazine.  Lulz aside

Agreed, that's f'n stupid.

the problem with this is that it would only impact law-abiding gun owners (as the criminal elements would undoubtedly top-up) and makes obvious the fact that this law is not about reducing gun violence, but about making guns no fun to shoot.

Yes, laws only affect people that abide by the laws. Thank you for pointing out that concept. Why even have laws, amiright? People keep on murdering each other, why even make it illegal?


While comparing malum prohibitum laws with malum in se laws is a popular tactic of firearm regulation advocates, the comparison is still dishonest.
 
2013-03-22 12:26:56 PM
I can't wait for all the deals on the fun stuff leaving New York.
 
2013-03-22 12:28:32 PM

Dimensio: Would loading seven rounds into a magazine, loading the magazine into a firearm, loading one of the cartridges into the firearm chamber, removing the firearm, adding an additional cartridge to the magazine (bringing its total back to seven) and reloading the magazine into the firearm (thus enabling a total of eight rounds to be fired before reloading) be prohibited under the statute?


If that's accepted, I imagine some lazy person going "screw it, I'm just putting 8 in at once, no one will know" and all of a sudden a cop tackles him out of nowhere, yelling "Can't you count?!"
 
2013-03-22 12:28:35 PM
I am cheerfully awaiting the violent breakdown of liberty and the institution of horrible tyranny this bill will surely bring about, for certain, absolutely.
 
2013-03-22 12:29:23 PM

DrRatchet: (at least until someone is arsed to design new mags for that massive NY market)


Someone will be arsed. Someone has probably already been arsed. Someone is probably making a design for people to make on those 3D printers so they can then go 'THIS LAW WON'T STOP ANYTHING JUST LOOK AT ALL THE GUNS I CAN MAKE WITH SPIT AND DUCT TAPE'.

Honestly, someone invents a 3D printer and the first thing society thinks to make with it is guns? This is why we can't have nice things.
 
2013-03-22 12:29:29 PM

Prank Monkey: I can't wait for all the deals on the fun stuff leaving New York.


you assume it's leaving.
 
2013-03-22 12:29:32 PM

Dimensio: Car_Ramrod: DrRatchet: Car_Ramrod: Granted I'm a bit slow, but why do they have to put a hold on the measure? Are they changing it to 6 or 8? What is happening? Why can't they still keep it at 7?

'Cause no one makes 7-round magazines, so this becomes a "back door" ban on all new magazine sales (at least until someone is arsed to design new mags for that massive NY market) and therefore a viable claim can be made in court that the law is overly restrictive.

But, couldn't they still make 6-round magazines? Or start making 7-round magazines?

Gov. Cuomo earlier suggested that 10-round magazines be allowed, but New Yorkers would be legally required to load no more than seven bullets into the magazine.  Lulz aside

Agreed, that's f'n stupid.

the problem with this is that it would only impact law-abiding gun owners (as the criminal elements would undoubtedly top-up) and makes obvious the fact that this law is not about reducing gun violence, but about making guns no fun to shoot.

Yes, laws only affect people that abide by the laws. Thank you for pointing out that concept. Why even have laws, amiright? People keep on murdering each other, why even make it illegal?

While comparing malum prohibitum laws with malum in se laws is a popular tactic of firearm regulation advocates, the comparison is still dishonest.


Uh, this is America. How about you talk in American, college boy.
 
2013-03-22 12:30:22 PM

Car_Ramrod: Dimensio: Would loading seven rounds into a magazine, loading the magazine into a firearm, loading one of the cartridges into the firearm chamber, removing the firearm, adding an additional cartridge to the magazine (bringing its total back to seven) and reloading the magazine into the firearm (thus enabling a total of eight rounds to be fired before reloading) be prohibited under the statute?

If that's accepted, I imagine some lazy person going "screw it, I'm just putting 8 in at once, no one will know" and all of a sudden a cop tackles him out of nowhere, yelling "Can't you count?!"


I could imagine law enforcement attempting to argue that having seven rounds in a magazine and one round in a firearm chamber is impossible without loading eight rounds into the magazine initiall. I could also imagine a jury of individuals ignorant of firearms technology accepting that lie without question.
 
2013-03-22 12:30:26 PM

Gosling: DrRatchet: (at least until someone is arsed to design new mags for that massive NY market)

Someone will be arsed. Someone has probably already been arsed. Someone is probably making a design for people to make on those 3D printers so they can then go 'THIS LAW WON'T STOP ANYTHING JUST LOOK AT ALL THE GUNS I CAN MAKE WITH SPIT AND DUCT TAPE'.

Honestly, someone invents a 3D printer and the first thing society thinks to make with it is guns? This is why we can't have nice things.


guns were the second thing.

Dildos were the first.
 
2013-03-22 12:30:54 PM

SploogeTime: Guns are NOT the problem. People are the problem. They always have been, they always will be.


I agree.  Keep people away from guns - problems solved.
 
2013-03-22 12:31:28 PM

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: Was it Blazing Saddles where one of the characters said something like "Seven shots?!  What do you think this is a western?!"  Or was it something else?


I think you're thinking of Silver Streak.  Richard Pryor talking to Gene Wilder.
 
2013-03-22 12:31:38 PM
Biden 2008:
"I guarantee you Barack Obama ain't taking my shotguns, so don't buy that malarkey," Biden said to voters during a campaign stop in Castlewood, Virginia on September 20. "Don't buy that malarkey. They're going to start peddling that to you."
Biden informed the crowd that he was the proud owner of two guns.
"If he tries to fool with my Beretta, he's got a problem," Biden added, referring to Obama.


Biden 2013:
"Limiting it to 10 rounds makes a difference in how many shots you can let off before someone can intervene."

Hey Joe,
Keep in mind your argument works both ways -- sure, everyone's got insane mass shooters in mind today because of recent events, but remember if a law abiding citizen gets caught in a firefight through no fault of their own, you are limiting their ability to defend themselves, too. The average 9mm handgun magazine carries 14-17 rounds. How many rounds does your Beretta's magazine hold?  Kinda sounds like Obama's fooling with your Beretta, if you ask me.
 
2013-03-22 12:31:50 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: hardinparamedic: Woohoo!!! M1911s for everybody!!!!!

M1911: For those rare times when you don't have a shotgun.

/Just this once, I'll admit that it's difficult to find a good holster for a 12GA.


And where am I gonna find a plug to limit the magazine for a Lee-Enfield?
 
2013-03-22 12:31:58 PM
Maybe instead of biatching about the laws that get passed the gun lobby and their mouth pieces can sit down to discuss real effective compromises for legislation. When you stick your fingers in your ears and say "la la la" this is what happens.
 
2013-03-22 12:32:09 PM

Dimensio: Car_Ramrod: Dimensio: Would loading seven rounds into a magazine, loading the magazine into a firearm, loading one of the cartridges into the firearm chamber, removing the firearm, adding an additional cartridge to the magazine (bringing its total back to seven) and reloading the magazine into the firearm (thus enabling a total of eight rounds to be fired before reloading) be prohibited under the statute?

If that's accepted, I imagine some lazy person going "screw it, I'm just putting 8 in at once, no one will know" and all of a sudden a cop tackles him out of nowhere, yelling "Can't you count?!"

I could imagine law enforcement attempting to argue that having seven rounds in a magazine and one round in a firearm chamber is impossible without loading eight rounds into the magazine initiall. I could also imagine a jury of individuals ignorant of firearms technology accepting that lie without question.


Stupidity of the regulation aside, isn't that what lawyers are paid for? To explain to the jury why it's possible?
 
2013-03-22 12:33:24 PM

SploogeTime: Guns are NOT the problem. People are the problem. They always have been, they always will be.


Unlimited abortion for everyone! We need to start limiting people!
 
2013-03-22 12:33:36 PM
First of all, subby, they're not called MAGAZINES.  They're called CLIPS.  Calling a clip a magazine tells me that you know nothing about guns and are possibly a homosexual.
 
2013-03-22 12:33:36 PM
Now I'm pretty damn anti-gun, but REALLY?  SEVEN?  what, was three too little for you?  Seriously, why not ten or fifteen?
 
2013-03-22 12:33:37 PM

snowjack: if a law abiding citizen gets caught in a firefight through no fault of their own


As will happen. Got caught in 3 firefights just last week.
 
2013-03-22 12:36:03 PM

Epoch_Zero: Good. Any legislation that can actually be passed is a start. This is getting out of control.

Btw: 2883 gun deaths in the US since Newtown.


I wonder how they might break it down... Hey check this out:

In the United States, annual firearm homicides total
2011: 11,101

In the United States, annual firearm suicides total
2011: 19,766

When I see these pictures posted on Facebook and such, like that one Yoko Ono posted about 1 million+ people dead cause of guns, I don't think it's fair at all that they add in the suicide ones.

Those people want to kill themselves regardless, that's not someone going out and killing someone else per say (not that the whole murder/suicide shiat doesn't happen)...
 
2013-03-22 12:36:29 PM

shamanwest: Maybe instead of biatching about the laws that get passed the gun lobby and their mouth pieces can sit down to discuss real effective compromises for legislation. When you stick your fingers in your ears and say "la la la" this is what happens.


Just like the Patriot Act is the fault of peaceniks who just complained instead of sitting down to help the government expand its surveillance activities.
 
2013-03-22 12:37:17 PM

shamanwest: Maybe instead of biatching about the laws that get passed the gun lobby and their mouth pieces can sit down to discuss real effective compromises for legislation. When you stick your fingers in your ears and say "la la la" this is what happens.


Precisely. By stomping feet and offering nothing but refusal and distractions and saying absolutely nothing will ever work and threats to go out and buy All The Guns for purposes of some ill-defined Preparation, what has happened is the gun lobby removed itself from the actual substantive debate. If the gun-control legislation that ultimately results is hard-line and draconian, that is the gun lobby's fault for failure to seriously participate in its drafting. They had their chance to provide real insight. They refused, adamantly refused, to do so. So the legislation was written without them.
 
2013-03-22 12:37:20 PM

shamanwest: Maybe instead of biatching about the laws that get passed the gun lobby and their mouth pieces can sit down to discuss real effective compromises for legislation. When you stick your fingers in your ears and say "la la la" this is what happens.


You really have no clue what happened here.  The one who went lalala was Cuomo, he wouldn't allow any debate about the law and its going to get tossed cause of how bad it was worded.
 
2013-03-22 12:37:27 PM
So, what if the minimum size is 8? Even better. Should the fail tag be replaced with Genius tag?
 
2013-03-22 12:37:45 PM

snowjack: if a law abiding citizen gets caught in a firefight through no fault of their own, you are limiting their ability to defend themselves, too.


Why would a law-abiding citizen, when caught in a firefight through no fault of their own (seriously, how often does that happen), decide to become an active participant? If you pull out a gun during a firefight, it means you are now an active target for every single other person with a gun. How is deliberately making yourself a higher-profile target "defending yourself"?
 
2013-03-22 12:40:46 PM

Car_Ramrod: Yes, laws only affect people that abide by the laws. Thank you for pointing out that concept. Why even have laws, amiright? People keep on murdering each other, why even make it illegal?


No, the idea is that the effect of a law should reflect the intent of the legislature that created it. "Legislative intent" matters, which is why it is often considered by appellate  courts. A 7-round limit on the manufacture, import, and sale of magazines would (presumably) have the effect of limiting access of criminals to larger magazines. Even a murderer can't stuff ten rounds into a seven round magazine. That a recreational shooter can't get a ten-round magazine could be looked at as "unfortunate, but the least restrictive thing we could do..."

However, if you allow large magazines but only allow them to be loaded to seven rounds, you have something that places no actual restriction on the criminal, but still burdens the lawful shooter. The law fails it's intent of restricting the number of bullets a criminal can put in his gun.

Now if your intention is to make a grand, failing gesture that produces no actual increase in public safety, fine. But you better note that in the preamble of the bill, so the courts clearly understand that "fail" is the essential intent of your law, lest they overturn it by mistake.
 
2013-03-22 12:41:17 PM

qorkfiend: snowjack: if a law abiding citizen gets caught in a firefight through no fault of their own, you are limiting their ability to defend themselves, too.

Why would a law-abiding citizen, when caught in a firefight through no fault of their own (seriously, how often does that happen), decide to become an active participant? If you pull out a gun during a firefight, it means you are now an active target for every single other person with a gun. How is deliberately making yourself a higher-profile target "defending yourself"?


Better instead to stand up without a gun and charge one of the crowd of murderers changing magazines in order to interrupt them.

Seriously - both are ridiculously rare in mass shootings. So rare you can list every time it has happened.
 
2013-03-22 12:41:32 PM

funmonger: Adopt Canadian gun laws already. Sheesh.


Do you mean that the United States of America should implement a national long gun registry that runs substantially over budget, suffers from extremely low compliance and that is ultimately repealed due to a failure to show any resulting benefit?
 
2013-03-22 12:41:47 PM

Car_Ramrod: snowjack: if a law abiding citizen gets caught in a firefight through no fault of their own

As will happen. Got caught in 3 firefights just last week.


Hell, I'm in a firefight right now.

brb gotta reload.
 
2013-03-22 12:42:55 PM

qorkfiend: If you pull out a gun during a firefight, it means you are now an active target for every single other person with a gun.


How often has a guy with a CCW been shot by a third party while defending himself?
 
2013-03-22 12:43:04 PM
Yes, because there is absolutely no history of the crazy shooters carrying multiple weapons so they can use the second one if someone tries to mess with them while they're reloading the first.

Most of these crazy farks have at the very least experimented with IEDs.  The Colorado guy had an apartment full of them, the UCF guy had some in his dorm, others have played with rigging propane tanks.  Meanwhile in China you have mass stabbings and things like that.  Clearly if you're a crazy in America you go with the gun because you get the best performance out of it, but it seems like banning the gun is just going to lead to "Mass IEDings" or whatever we'll call them.  All the smaller magazine really seems to do is ensure a couple extra people will escape when the guy is reloading, it doesn't actually do shiat to stop the mass shooting.  I'd much rather see a solution that dealt with the mental health problems than other options.

The shiatty thing is the NRA refuses to admit that gun culture needs to change, gun owners need to help authorities notice the crazy guy at the range, and things like that.  The government meanwhile is just going to enact some gun control and act like they solved the problem by dealing some of the low hanging fruit.
 
2013-03-22 12:43:13 PM

ShadowKamui: HotWingConspiracy: "Rushed" meaning the gun lobby failed to halt it.

No he pretty much wiped his *** w/ the democratic process in NY and forced a bill through w/o any debate screaming think of the children!!!!!


LOL sure. I guess it will be easy for the courts to knock it down then.
 
2013-03-22 12:44:22 PM

qorkfiend: snowjack: if a law abiding citizen gets caught in a firefight through no fault of their own, you are limiting their ability to defend themselves, too.

Why would a law-abiding citizen, when caught in a firefight through no fault of their own (seriously, how often does that happen), decide to become an active participant? If you pull out a gun during a firefight, it means you are now an active target for every single other person with a gun. How is deliberately making yourself a higher-profile target "defending yourself"?


You forget... they drew first blood.
 
2013-03-22 12:45:23 PM

CptnSpldng: demaL-demaL-yeH: hardinparamedic: Woohoo!!! M1911s for everybody!!!!!

M1911: For those rare times when you don't have a shotgun.

/Just this once, I'll admit that it's difficult to find a good holster for a 12GA.

And where am I gonna find a plug to limit the magazine for a Lee-Enfield?


Doesn't apply unless the magazine is detachable and there's another "scary" feature.
Enfields and Garands are exempt.
 
2013-03-22 12:46:22 PM

Dimensio: Car_Ramrod: Dimensio: Would loading seven rounds into a magazine, loading the magazine into a firearm, loading one of the cartridges into the firearm chamber, removing the firearm, adding an additional cartridge to the magazine (bringing its total back to seven) and reloading the magazine into the firearm (thus enabling a total of eight rounds to be fired before reloading) be prohibited under the statute?

If that's accepted, I imagine some lazy person going "screw it, I'm just putting 8 in at once, no one will know" and all of a sudden a cop tackles him out of nowhere, yelling "Can't you count?!"

I could imagine law enforcement attempting to argue that having seven rounds in a magazine and one round in a firearm chamber is impossible without loading eight rounds into the magazine initiall. I could also imagine a jury of individuals ignorant of firearms technology accepting that lie without question.


It's not.  It would be easy to demonstrate in court.

1) Load seven rounds into magazine (magazine=7)
2) Load magazine into pistol (magazine=7)
3) Chamber a round (magazine=6)
4) Eject magazine (magazine=6)
5) Load one round into magazine (magazine=7)
6) Load magazine into pistol (magazine=7)

You've now got seven rounds in the mag and one in the hole, but at no time did you load more than seven into the magazine itself.  Everyone I know that carries a semi-automatic always puts a round in the chamber, 10+1 is pretty much universal.  The rationale is that if you're going to be carrying a pistol, it had better be ready to use, you may not have time to work the action if you have to draw it.
 
2013-03-22 12:47:15 PM

Frank N Stein: qorkfiend: If you pull out a gun during a firefight, it means you are now an active target for every single other person with a gun.

How often has a guy with a CCW been shot by a third party while defending himself?


How often do guys with CCWs join firefights already in progress?
 
2013-03-22 12:47:42 PM

CPennypacker: Subby and the Post are apparently unfamiliar with the mathematical concept of "greater than"


The article could have been clearer in describing the problem with the law.  In case you don't actually understand the problem with the law and weren't just being snarky, I will try to explain it more clearly.  For the vast majority of weapons covered by this law there are no magazines manufactured that comply with the restrictions in the law and no plan to make any.  There are maybe 100 gun models that have magazines that comply, Mostly guns that were designed over 50 years ago and very small handguns designed for concealment.  The smallest magazine made for most modern semiautomatic weapons is 10 rounds.  The law effectively bans the sales of the vast majority of semiautomatic weapons in New York state.
 
2013-03-22 12:48:36 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Garands are exempt.


I find it hilarious that morons think "high powered military style semi-automatic rifles" like the AR-15 should be banned, but are fine with M1 Garands, even though the M1 is an actual military semi-automatic (not hurr duurr "in the style of") that chambers a significantly more powerful cartridge (30-06)
 
2013-03-22 12:49:30 PM

HK-MP5-SD: The law effectively bans the sales of the vast majority of semiautomatic weapons in New York state.


No it doesn't, because you can get and have 10 round magazines as long as you only keep 7 rounds in them.

A fact that gun nuts conveniently ignore because they want to promote this bullsh*t.
 
2013-03-22 12:49:35 PM

qorkfiend: Frank N Stein: qorkfiend: If you pull out a gun during a firefight, it means you are now an active target for every single other person with a gun.

How often has a guy with a CCW been shot by a third party while defending himself?

How often do guys with CCWs join firefights already in progress?


1. I don't have a CCW
2. Why can't you answer the question?
 
2013-03-22 12:49:59 PM

ha-ha-guy: Meanwhile in China you have mass stabbings and things like that.  Clearly if you're a crazy in America you go with the gun because you get the best performance out of it, but it seems like banning the gun is just going to lead to "Mass IEDings" or whatever we'll call them.


There was a mass stabbing in a Chinese school the exact same day as the Newtown shootings.  The only difference was the weapon used.  Guess how many of those kids as a result?
 
2013-03-22 12:50:06 PM

Dimensio: Do you mean that the United States of America should implement a national long gun registry that runs substantially over budget, suffers from extremely low compliance and that is ultimately repealed due to a failure to show any resulting benefit?


And what country provided Canada with their guns?

Yeah. We're not just farking up our country here. We're farking up everyone else's countries too.
 
2013-03-22 12:50:08 PM

Frank N Stein: demaL-demaL-yeH: Garands are exempt.

I find it hilarious that morons think "high powered military style semi-automatic rifles" like the AR-15 should be banned, but are fine with M1 Garands, even though the M1 is an actual military semi-automatic (not hurr duurr "in the style of") that chambers a significantly more powerful cartridge (30-06)


An M-1 also can't hold a 30 or 100 round magazine.
 
2013-03-22 12:51:07 PM

Frank N Stein: qorkfiend: Frank N Stein: qorkfiend: If you pull out a gun during a firefight, it means you are now an active target for every single other person with a gun.

How often has a guy with a CCW been shot by a third party while defending himself?

How often do guys with CCWs join firefights already in progress?

1. I don't have a CCW
2. Why can't you answer the question?


Why can't YOU answer the question?
 
2013-03-22 12:52:00 PM

Car_Ramrod: snowjack: if a law abiding citizen gets caught in a firefight through no fault of their own

As will happen. Got caught in 3 firefights just last week.


I guffawed at that line, and chortled at your response.
 
2013-03-22 12:52:28 PM

THX 1138: ha-ha-guy: Meanwhile in China you have mass stabbings and things like that.  Clearly if you're a crazy in America you go with the gun because you get the best performance out of it, but it seems like banning the gun is just going to lead to "Mass IEDings" or whatever we'll call them.

There was a mass stabbing in a Chinese school the exact same day as the Newtown shootings.  The only difference was the weapon used.  Guess how many of those kids as a result?


Li Xianliang managed to kill 17 people with a tractor, grown adults. Oh, and he was on a drunken rampage, too.

Lets not forget that the Virgina Tech shooting, with a higher body count, was done with  pistols and 10-round magazines. Cho just brought a backback full of extra magazines with him.
 
2013-03-22 12:53:14 PM

qorkfiend: Frank N Stein: qorkfiend: If you pull out a gun during a firefight, it means you are now an active target for every single other person with a gun.

How often has a guy with a CCW been shot by a third party while defending himself?

How often do guys with CCWs join firefights already in progress?


Roughly at the same rate people interrupt swapping mags.
 
2013-03-22 12:53:42 PM

Frank N Stein: qorkfiend: Frank N Stein: qorkfiend: If you pull out a gun during a firefight, it means you are now an active target for every single other person with a gun.

How often has a guy with a CCW been shot by a third party while defending himself?

How often do guys with CCWs join firefights already in progress?

1. I don't have a CCW
2. Why can't you answer the question?


Because it had nothing to do with the original question, which was speculating on limiting someone's ability to defend themselves after joining a firefight in progress?
 
2013-03-22 12:53:48 PM

THX 1138: ha-ha-guy: Meanwhile in China you have mass stabbings and things like that.  Clearly if you're a crazy in America you go with the gun because you get the best performance out of it, but it seems like banning the gun is just going to lead to "Mass IEDings" or whatever we'll call them.

There was a mass stabbing in a Chinese school the exact same day as the Newtown shootings.  The only difference was the weapon used.  Guess how many of those kids as a result?


You do realize that the Chinese guy in question was specifically not trying to kill the children but rather to permanently disfigure them by cutting off ears and noses.
 
2013-03-22 12:54:17 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Frank N Stein: demaL-demaL-yeH: Garands are exempt.

I find it hilarious that morons think "high powered military style semi-automatic rifles" like the AR-15 should be banned, but are fine with M1 Garands, even though the M1 is an actual military semi-automatic (not hurr duurr "in the style of") that chambers a significantly more powerful cartridge (30-06)

An M-1 also can't hold a 30 or 100 round magazine.


world.guns.ru

You wanna try that again?
 
2013-03-22 12:55:52 PM

cameroncrazy1984: HK-MP5-SD: The law effectively bans the sales of the vast majority of semiautomatic weapons in New York state.

No it doesn't, because you can get and have 10 round magazines as long as you only keep 7 rounds in them.

A fact that gun nuts conveniently ignore because they want to promote this bullsh*t.


So if I can buy 10 round magazines as long as I don't put 8 rounds in them, why can't I buy 12, 15, 18, or 30 round magazines? what is the difference.
 
2013-03-22 12:56:02 PM

cameroncrazy1984: HK-MP5-SD: The law effectively bans the sales of the vast majority of semiautomatic weapons in New York state.

No it doesn't, because you can get and have 10 round magazines as long as you only keep 7 rounds in them.

A fact that gun nuts conveniently ignore because they want to promote this bullsh*t.


The law, as authored, prohibits the transfer of any magazine capable of holding more than seven rounds. Ten round magazines may be possessed only if they were in the possession of the owner prior to the effective date of the law, and they may not be transfered to any other citizen within the state.

Did you not actually read the text of the law?
 
2013-03-22 12:56:29 PM

Frank N Stein: cameroncrazy1984: Frank N Stein: demaL-demaL-yeH: Garands are exempt.

I find it hilarious that morons think "high powered military style semi-automatic rifles" like the AR-15 should be banned, but are fine with M1 Garands, even though the M1 is an actual military semi-automatic (not hurr duurr "in the style of") that chambers a significantly more powerful cartridge (30-06)

An M-1 also can't hold a 30 or 100 round magazine.

[world.guns.ru image 650x191]

You wanna try that again?


Here's an M1A for you as well
www.myhostedpics.com
 
2013-03-22 12:57:00 PM

Frank N Stein: cameroncrazy1984: Frank N Stein: demaL-demaL-yeH: Garands are exempt.

I find it hilarious that morons think "high powered military style semi-automatic rifles" like the AR-15 should be banned, but are fine with M1 Garands, even though the M1 is an actual military semi-automatic (not hurr duurr "in the style of") that chambers a significantly more powerful cartridge (30-06)

An M-1 also can't hold a 30 or 100 round magazine.

[world.guns.ru image 650x191]

You wanna try that again?


Uh, that's not a Garand, that's a completely different weapon.
 
2013-03-22 12:58:47 PM

Frank N Stein: cameroncrazy1984: Frank N Stein: demaL-demaL-yeH: Garands are exempt.

I find it hilarious that morons think "high powered military style semi-automatic rifles" like the AR-15 should be banned, but are fine with M1 Garands, even though the M1 is an actual military semi-automatic (not hurr duurr "in the style of") that chambers a significantly more powerful cartridge (30-06)

An M-1 also can't hold a 30 or 100 round magazine.

[world.guns.ru image 650x191]

You wanna try that again?


That's not a Garand.
 
2013-03-22 12:58:55 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Frank N Stein: cameroncrazy1984: Frank N Stein: demaL-demaL-yeH: Garands are exempt.

I find it hilarious that morons think "high powered military style semi-automatic rifles" like the AR-15 should be banned, but are fine with M1 Garands, even though the M1 is an actual military semi-automatic (not hurr duurr "in the style of") that chambers a significantly more powerful cartridge (30-06)

An M-1 also can't hold a 30 or 100 round magazine.

[world.guns.ru image 650x191]

You wanna try that again?

Uh, that's not a Garand, that's a completely different weapon.


You said M1, not Garand. That's an M1 Carbine.
 
2013-03-22 12:59:03 PM

DrRatchet: Car_Ramrod: Yes, laws only affect people that abide by the laws. Thank you for pointing out that concept. Why even have laws, amiright? People keep on murdering each other, why even make it illegal?

No, the idea is that the effect of a law should reflect the intent of the legislature that created it. "Legislative intent" matters, which is why it is often considered by appellate  courts. A 7-round limit on the manufacture, import, and sale of magazines would (presumably) have the effect of limiting access of criminals to larger magazines. Even a murderer can't stuff ten rounds into a seven round magazine. That a recreational shooter can't get a ten-round magazine could be looked at as "unfortunate, but the least restrictive thing we could do..."

However, if you allow large magazines but only allow them to be loaded to seven rounds, you have something that places no actual restriction on the criminal, but still burdens the lawful shooter. The law fails it's intent of restricting the number of bullets a criminal can put in his gun.

Now if your intention is to make a grand, failing gesture that produces no actual increase in public safety, fine. But you better note that in the preamble of the bill, so the courts clearly understand that "fail" is the essential intent of your law, lest they overturn it by mistake.


I know it would be a stupid regulation. But noting "criminals do it anyway" is a lame argument, one that I see too often in gun threads. Argue against why specifically the law is stupid. Like inability to enforce it. Are they going to do spot checks on gun owners to see how many rounds are in there at a time? And as someone else pointed out, how can we tell between loading 8 rounds, and loading 7, getting one into the chamber, then loading another round? There are many ways to argue this regulation, don't take the low-hanging fruit.
 
2013-03-22 01:00:39 PM

Frank N Stein: Frank N Stein: cameroncrazy1984: Frank N Stein: demaL-demaL-yeH: Garands are exempt.

I find it hilarious that morons think "high powered military style semi-automatic rifles" like the AR-15 should be banned, but are fine with M1 Garands, even though the M1 is an actual military semi-automatic (not hurr duurr "in the style of") that chambers a significantly more powerful cartridge (30-06)

An M-1 also can't hold a 30 or 100 round magazine.

[world.guns.ru image 650x191]

You wanna try that again?

Here's an M1A for you as well
[www.myhostedpics.com image 635x388]


And that's a civilian version of the M-14.
Also not a Garand.
 
2013-03-22 01:00:52 PM

SploogeTime: Guns are NOT the problem. People are the problem. They always have been, they always will be.


No in and of themselves guns are not the problem. The fact that it changes the situation from a few killed in minutes from beating, strangling, running someone over or stabbing to someone being able to take out dozens potentially in the same time frame. I have yet to hear from any NRA types why a clip that holds more than 14 rounds is necessary.I live in a rough neighborhood in a real shiathole of a dump (see Tyler,TX) and the only protection I have ever needed was a simple .38 revolver. I have yet to hear a valid explanation as to why some individuals need a clip that holds eleventy-billion rounds or why there are background checks on hand guns but any jerk can wander in the sporting goods at Walmart and by a shotgun and rounds with no kind of identification other than age verification. I could go on but you've all heard them, this is my point a lot of gun owners want the privileges afforded by the second amendment but refuse to accept any sort of responsibility along with the right to bear arms. Instead they shoot of their mouths about freedom and commies and make me, a responsible gun owner look like a whining deranged self-entitled sack of shiat just like them. The moronic reactionary children at the NRA and their sycophantic followers make every gun owner look like a nutcase and for the record these Neanderthals don't speak for me at least. No clips over 16, background checks for all firearms, no conversion kits, documentation for every last private sale either by individual owners or at gun shows accompanied by a background check no exceptions, stockpiling of weapons (I define this as more than two dozen) is illegal unless you are a professional dealer, gun permit is mandatory to get any weapon even rifles and shotguns, and finally mandatory test for mental illness before issuance of a fire arms permit. I would have no problem buying a gun or having mine confiscated, anyone who can't pass the muster I set out in my opinion is either an illegal or irresponsible gun owner and should not be allowed to posses a fire arm.

Sorry but I get tarred as a gun nut by many of my friends just by association so this is a bit of a sore spot for me. But then again I don't get off on pretending I'm G.I. Joe like most other gun owners or at least the ones I know.
 
2013-03-22 01:02:32 PM

Frank N Stein: cameroncrazy1984: Frank N Stein: cameroncrazy1984: Frank N Stein: demaL-demaL-yeH: Garands are exempt.

I find it hilarious that morons think "high powered military style semi-automatic rifles" like the AR-15 should be banned, but are fine with M1 Garands, even though the M1 is an actual military semi-automatic (not hurr duurr "in the style of") that chambers a significantly more powerful cartridge (30-06)

An M-1 also can't hold a 30 or 100 round magazine.

[world.guns.ru image 650x191]

You wanna try that again?

Uh, that's not a Garand, that's a completely different weapon.

You said M1, not Garand. That's an M1 Carbine.


You're high.
 
2013-03-22 01:04:09 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: And that's a civilian version of the M-14.
Also not a Garand.


You're right. farked up by listing that.
 
2013-03-22 01:04:48 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: You're high.


I'm farking with cameron, relax.
 
2013-03-22 01:08:44 PM
so I assume the criminals will respect this law. I assume it will save countless lives. I assume antigunnuts fapping in this thread about SOMETHING MUST BE DONE have good explanations for how this is making the world better.
 
2013-03-22 01:09:24 PM

Frank N Stein: demaL-demaL-yeH: You're high.

I'm farking with cameron, relax.


Ask him about Hessians and the second amendment.
 
2013-03-22 01:09:35 PM

I feel bad because I'd love to get my rifle into as many police departments as possible...who doesn't want their law enforcement agencies armed with the best possible tools to take out the bad guys? I heard a rumor that the only other company with a .50 BMG semi-auto rifle in production won't sell to NY police agencies either. So because of a stupid law the venerable NYPD won't have the best tools for the job....

XXXX,

Yes, I got the message and tried to return the call but got no answer. I appreciate your interest in our BFG-50A; I'm sure it would be an excellent addition to your department's arsenal. Unfortunately, we have a policy of selling to state law enforcement agencies only what is allowed to be sold to private citizens in that state. Since the passage of the NY SAFE act, the BFG-50A is considered an assault weapon and as such is no longer available to private citizens in the state of New York. Therefore we have to respectfully decline to supply your department with BFG-50A rifles.
Regards,
Mark Serbu


On 03/18/2013 01:24 PM, XXXXXXXX wrote:
Mr. Serbu,
My name is XXXXXXXX. I am assigned to the NYPD Firearms and Tactics Section. I have been directed to research a new semi-automatic .50 caliber platform for my department.
Two weeks ago I spoke to Deanne at your office regarding the possibility of obtaining one of your rifles for test and evaluation.
If you would please get back to me either way regarding this proposal I would appreciate it.
XXXXXXXX
NYPD-FTS

 via Sebrus fb page....

We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.
 
2013-03-22 01:16:41 PM
I lurve me my 1911. It may only hold 7, but it only needs 1.
 
2013-03-22 01:18:27 PM
So, this law covers future sales and relies on the honor system? The horses have left the barn and the debate is how to close the door? And what color the door should be?Not against sensible gun control, just haven't seen any.
 
2013-03-22 01:23:35 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: And that's a civilian version of the M-14.


All m14s, except a very small number (maybe 100-400 modified for the SEALs for select fire) are the civillian version.
 
2013-03-22 01:24:39 PM

BayouOtter: THX 1138: ha-ha-guy: Meanwhile in China you have mass stabbings and things like that.  Clearly if you're a crazy in America you go with the gun because you get the best performance out of it, but it seems like banning the gun is just going to lead to "Mass IEDings" or whatever we'll call them.

There was a mass stabbing in a Chinese school the exact same day as the Newtown shootings.  The only difference was the weapon used.  Guess how many of those kids as a result?

Li Xianliang managed to kill 17 people with a tractor, grown adults. Oh, and he was on a drunken rampage, too.

Lets not forget that the Virgina Tech shooting, with a higher body count, was done with  pistols and 10-round magazines. Cho just brought a backback full of extra magazines with him.


Also that stabbing still ended with kids in intensive care.  Which is the fundamental problem.  I want a solution that ends such attacks, not just reduces the kill count because a less than optimal weapon was used.  I doubt we as a society will be sitting there going "Well he used a buck knife and only killed two kids, so it's cool."  Instead the demand will be "WTF, why is this still happening?".  Gun control doesn't prevent this kind of attack, so it is not the ultimate solution, yet it seems to be all some people can talk about.
 
2013-03-22 01:25:27 PM

Giltric: demaL-demaL-yeH: And that's a civilian version of the M-14.

All m14s, except a very small number (maybe 100-400 modified for the SEALs for select fire) are the civillian version.


Dude. What the hey?

No.

/Just no.
 
2013-03-22 01:27:36 PM
So long as self-defense is a purpose protected by the Second Amendment, you can't meaningfully ban people from having guns in a situation that can kill people. Because killing people is considered an acceptable and protected use for guns. You can make "reasonable restrictions," but almost anything that makes it hard to use a gun to murder someone also makes it hard to use a gun to commit justifiable homicide on someone. You can't really distinguish between the two in any technical (i.e. engineering-based and not legal) way. There are basically no magic murder guns that only commit murder but don't work for self-defense. At least none that aren't already heavily regulated (machine guns, explosives, etc.).
 
2013-03-22 01:35:13 PM
Yeah, as this is basically a defacto ban on the most common type of weapon in the country (semi-automatic pistols), it's blatantly unconstitutional under current Supreme Court rulings, and a gift for the NRA.
 
2013-03-22 01:35:57 PM

ha-ha-guy: BayouOtter: THX 1138: ha-ha-guy: Meanwhile in China you have mass stabbings and things like that.  Clearly if you're a crazy in America you go with the gun because you get the best performance out of it, but it seems like banning the gun is just going to lead to "Mass IEDings" or whatever we'll call them.

There was a mass stabbing in a Chinese school the exact same day as the Newtown shootings.  The only difference was the weapon used.  Guess how many of those kids as a result?

Li Xianliang managed to kill 17 people with a tractor, grown adults. Oh, and he was on a drunken rampage, too.

Lets not forget that the Virgina Tech shooting, with a higher body count, was done with  pistols and 10-round magazines. Cho just brought a backback full of extra magazines with him.

Also that stabbing still ended with kids in intensive care.  Which is the fundamental problem.  I want a solution that ends such attacks, not just reduces the kill count because a less than optimal weapon was used.  I doubt we as a society will be sitting there going "Well he used a buck knife and only killed two kids, so it's cool."  Instead the demand will be "WTF, why is this still happening?".  Gun control doesn't prevent this kind of attack, so it is not the ultimate solution, yet it seems to be all some people can talk about.


You don't support measures that could make these incidents less lethal because you want an ultimate solution to the problem of drunk driving, er, shooting rampages.
 
2013-03-22 01:36:25 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Giltric: demaL-demaL-yeH: And that's a civilian version of the M-14.

All m14s, except a very small number (maybe 100-400 modified for the SEALs for select fire) are the civillian version.

Dude. What the hey?

No.

/Just no.


It was desinged as a select fire weapon and all were converted to semi auto only operation because they were useless and uncontollable in full auto.
 
2013-03-22 01:38:33 PM

Geotpf: Yeah, as this is basically a defacto ban on the most common type of weapon in the country (semi-automatic pistols), it's blatantly unconstitutional under current Supreme Court rulings, and a gift for the NRA.


Yup.  It's one of the uglier aspects of the gun control debate.  A lot of the solutions seem to be "Lets bring back that the AWB, whose only real impact was a price spike on 30 round magazines" or "Lets go brush the dust off laws that Supreme Courts have already struck down, pass them to placate the public, and hope gun control is out the news cycle when the court system hands us our ass."  It's not a solution, it's so the elected officials can appear to be doing something.  Of course the something is pissing away tax dollars and court system time with a measure that isn't likely to stick around.
 
2013-03-22 01:40:58 PM
demaL-demaL-yeH:
You don't support measures that could make these incidents less lethal because you want an ultimate solution to the problem of drunk driving, er, shooting rampages.

Lack of a gun doesn't make a nutball killer any less lethal. Some examples:
These three methods are the most effective ways a lone nut can kill lots of people, all at once. You can rack up the triple digits pretty easily this way. For example:
The Our Lady of the Angels School fire, which killed 95. The suspected arsonist was never tried.
Or maybe the the work of Jin Ruchao, who killed 108 people in Shijiazhuan with his ill-synced bomb attack? (4 bombs that went off at once)
Or Zhang Pilin, who killed 112 by downing China Northern Airlines Flight 6136 all by himself? (Passenger, not a pilot)
Or good old American Robert Dale Segee, who killed over 200 in a fire in Hartford? The circus grounds were so burnt the authorities still aren't sure how many he murdered.
We could talk about Kim Dae-han, a 56 year old half-paralyzed man that killed 198 Koreans in the Daegu subway fire? He didn't need a gun.
Gameel Al-Batouti went a little crazy and killed 217 when he crashed EgyptAir Flight 990 into the ocean. Not a gun in sight - though he was the pilot.
Adilson Marcelino Alves killed over 300 in, you guessed it - another act of circus related arson. What is it about circuses and fire?
William Unek managed to whack 21 folks to death with an axe in an orgy of violence, which goes to show a dedicated killer will succeed even without machinery.
(I'd have included McVeigh, but he had accomplices)
 
2013-03-22 01:43:14 PM

Frank N Stein: You wanna try that again?


That's a M1 Carbine (.30 cal) not a M1 Garand (30-06)
 
2013-03-22 01:43:59 PM

BayouOtter: demaL-demaL-yeH:
You don't support measures that could make these incidents less lethal because you want an ultimate solution to the problem of drunk driving, er, shooting rampages.

Lack of a gun doesn't make a nutball killer any less lethal. Some examples:
These three methods are the most effective ways a lone nut can kill lots of people, all at once. You can rack up the triple digits pretty easily this way. For example:
The Our Lady of the Angels School fire, which killed 95. The suspected arsonist was never tried.
Or maybe the the work of Jin Ruchao, who killed 108 people in Shijiazhuan with his ill-synced bomb attack? (4 bombs that went off at once)
Or Zhang Pilin, who killed 112 by downing China Northern Airlines Flight 6136 all by himself? (Passenger, not a pilot)
Or good old American Robert Dale Segee, who killed over 200 in a fire in Hartford? The circus grounds were so burnt the authorities still aren't sure how many he murdered.
We could talk about Kim Dae-han, a 56 year old half-paralyzed man that killed 198 Koreans in the Daegu subway fire? He didn't need a gun.
Gameel Al-Batouti went a little crazy and killed 217 when he crashed EgyptAir Flight 990 into the ocean. Not a gun in sight - though he was the pilot.
Adilson Marcelino Alves killed over 300 in, you guessed it - another act of circus related arson. What is it about circuses and fire?
William Unek managed to whack 21 folks to death with an axe in an orgy of violence, which goes to show a dedicated killer will succeed even without machinery.
(I'd have included McVeigh, but he had accomplices)


Lost a line: Arson, crashes, and bombs usually do a lot more injury and death than a firearm, if we're talking about a typical mass-murder by a lone individual type situation.
 
2013-03-22 01:45:27 PM

ha-ha-guy: BayouOtter: THX 1138: ha-ha-guy: Meanwhile in China you have mass stabbings and things like that.  Clearly if you're a crazy in America you go with the gun because you get the best performance out of it, but it seems like banning the gun is just going to lead to "Mass IEDings" or whatever we'll call them.

There was a mass stabbing in a Chinese school the exact same day as the Newtown shootings.  The only difference was the weapon used.  Guess how many of those kids as a result?

Li Xianliang managed to kill 17 people with a tractor, grown adults. Oh, and he was on a drunken rampage, too.

Lets not forget that the Virgina Tech shooting, with a higher body count, was done with  pistols and 10-round magazines. Cho just brought a backback full of extra magazines with him.

Also that stabbing still ended with kids in intensive care.  Which is the fundamental problem.  I want a solution that ends such attacks, not just reduces the kill count because a less than optimal weapon was used.  I doubt we as a society will be sitting there going "Well he used a buck knife and only killed two kids, so it's cool."  Instead the demand will be "WTF, why is this still happening?".  Gun control doesn't prevent this kind of attack, so it is not the ultimate solution, yet it seems to be all some people can talk about.


You want a solution, but you vote for the bastards that will never craft or support any thing that resembles a solution aside from more guns. So sorry if I don't believe that you want a solution.
 
2013-03-22 01:46:16 PM

PDid: You want a solution, but you vote for the bastards that will never craft or support any thing that resembles a solution aside from more guns. So sorry if I don't believe that you want a solution.


Where did I say who I voted for?
 
2013-03-22 01:50:19 PM
It is up to the NRA to craft more gun laws as a form of compromise with the gun control crowd?

Would it be up to pro abortion groups to pass better restrictions on abortion?

WTF people?
 
2013-03-22 01:52:07 PM

Giltric: It is up to the NRA to craft more gun laws as a form of compromise with the gun control crowd?

Would it be up to pro abortion groups to pass better restrictions on abortion?

WTF people?


I was under the impression that the NRA's job was to go batshiat insane and alienate 90% of the country. Was that incorrect?

I think they are referring to the Republicans, who are going batshiat insane too because they are in the NRA's pocket.
 
2013-03-22 01:55:31 PM

CPennypacker: Giltric: It is up to the NRA to craft more gun laws as a form of compromise with the gun control crowd?

Would it be up to pro abortion groups to pass better restrictions on abortion?

WTF people?

I was under the impression that the NRA's job was to go batshiat insane and alienate 90% of the country. Was that incorrect?

I think they are referring to the Republicans, who are going batshiat insane too because they are in the NRA's pocket.


It is up to a civil rights group, of which the NRA is the oldest in the country, to fight to expand civil rights, not compromise and help further restrict them.

Why aren't the democrats compromising on tax cuts for the wealthy?
 
2013-03-22 01:56:36 PM

CPennypacker: Subby and the Post are apparently unfamiliar with the mathematical concept of "greater than"


I was told there would be no math.
 
2013-03-22 01:59:19 PM

Frank N Stein: cameroncrazy1984: Frank N Stein: cameroncrazy1984: Frank N Stein: demaL-demaL-yeH: Garands are exempt.

I find it hilarious that morons think "high powered military style semi-automatic rifles" like the AR-15 should be banned, but are fine with M1 Garands, even though the M1 is an actual military semi-automatic (not hurr duurr "in the style of") that chambers a significantly more powerful cartridge (30-06)

An M-1 also can't hold a 30 or 100 round magazine.

[world.guns.ru image 650x191]

You wanna try that again?

Uh, that's not a Garand, that's a completely different weapon.

You said M1, not Garand. That's an M1 Carbine.


Do you honestly think those two weapons are even on the same platform? Because they're not. And the discussion was about the Garand, not the Carbine. They are two completely separate platforms. Here's what you sound like:

"A Ford F-150 is great for hauling"

"Yeah, the Ford is a great truck"

"Haw Haw, the Ford Pinto doesn't haul worth sh*t!"
 
2013-03-22 01:59:51 PM

Giltric: CPennypacker: Giltric: It is up to the NRA to craft more gun laws as a form of compromise with the gun control crowd?

Would it be up to pro abortion groups to pass better restrictions on abortion?

WTF people?

I was under the impression that the NRA's job was to go batshiat insane and alienate 90% of the country. Was that incorrect?

I think they are referring to the Republicans, who are going batshiat insane too because they are in the NRA's pocket.

It is up to a civil rights group, of which the NRA is the oldest in the country, to fight to expand civil rights, not compromise and help further restrict them.

Why aren't the democrats compromising on tax cuts for the wealthy?


lol the NRA is a civil rights group.
 
2013-03-22 02:01:07 PM
I like the analogy.  My wife gets bad at me for not doing the dishes,  I think she is an evil insult to nature that will burn in hell but we work through it.
 
2013-03-22 02:03:27 PM
It's an antisymmetric, transitive, irreflexive, total, binary endorelation. Study it out.
 
2013-03-22 02:05:10 PM
"Cuomo also said he and lawmakers may exempt retired law-enforcement officers from the gun-control law's limits "

...because no former LEO has ever gone on a killing spree?  oh, wait...
 
2013-03-22 02:09:28 PM
Well, regardless of WHAT restriction they end up having, at least they will put agents on every road entering New York state to search every vehicle coming in from a different state that might sell the 15 or 30 round magazines.

For the children.
 
2013-03-22 02:15:39 PM

ShadowKamui: THX 1138: ha-ha-guy: Meanwhile in China you have mass stabbings and things like that.  Clearly if you're a crazy in America you go with the gun because you get the best performance out of it, but it seems like banning the gun is just going to lead to "Mass IEDings" or whatever we'll call them.

There was a mass stabbing in a Chinese school the exact same day as the Newtown shootings.  The only difference was the weapon used.  Guess how many of those kids as a result?

You do realize that the Chinese guy in question was specifically not trying to kill the children but rather to permanently disfigure them by cutting off ears and noses.



Source?
 
2013-03-22 02:21:05 PM

CPennypacker: Giltric: CPennypacker: Giltric: It is up to the NRA to craft more gun laws as a form of compromise with the gun control crowd?

Would it be up to pro abortion groups to pass better restrictions on abortion?

WTF people?

I was under the impression that the NRA's job was to go batshiat insane and alienate 90% of the country. Was that incorrect?

I think they are referring to the Republicans, who are going batshiat insane too because they are in the NRA's pocket.

It is up to a civil rights group, of which the NRA is the oldest in the country, to fight to expand civil rights, not compromise and help further restrict them.

Why aren't the democrats compromising on tax cuts for the wealthy?

lol the NRA is a civil rights group.


It is better to be thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt.
 
2013-03-22 02:21:21 PM

Community Agitator: Well, regardless of WHAT restriction they end up having, at least they will put agents on every road entering New York state to search every vehicle coming in from a different state that might sell the 15 or 30 round magazines.

For the children.


Well, according to their new logic it seems to me that you can have any size magazine as long as you only put 7 rounds in it. There is no difference to a 10 round clip loaded with 7 to a 30 round clip loaded with 7.
 
2013-03-22 02:26:05 PM

Giltric: CPennypacker: Giltric: CPennypacker: Giltric: It is up to the NRA to craft more gun laws as a form of compromise with the gun control crowd?

Would it be up to pro abortion groups to pass better restrictions on abortion?

WTF people?

I was under the impression that the NRA's job was to go batshiat insane and alienate 90% of the country. Was that incorrect?

I think they are referring to the Republicans, who are going batshiat insane too because they are in the NRA's pocket.

It is up to a civil rights group, of which the NRA is the oldest in the country, to fight to expand civil rights, not compromise and help further restrict them.

Why aren't the democrats compromising on tax cuts for the wealthy?

lol the NRA is a civil rights group.

It is better to be thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt.


If you really believed that you would have shut your mouth on December 14 and kept it shut.
 
2013-03-22 02:34:31 PM

CPennypacker: Giltric: CPennypacker: Giltric: CPennypacker: Giltric: It is up to the NRA to craft more gun laws as a form of compromise with the gun control crowd?

Would it be up to pro abortion groups to pass better restrictions on abortion?

WTF people?

I was under the impression that the NRA's job was to go batshiat insane and alienate 90% of the country. Was that incorrect?

I think they are referring to the Republicans, who are going batshiat insane too because they are in the NRA's pocket.

It is up to a civil rights group, of which the NRA is the oldest in the country, to fight to expand civil rights, not compromise and help further restrict them.

Why aren't the democrats compromising on tax cuts for the wealthy?

lol the NRA is a civil rights group.

It is better to be thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt.

If you really believed that you would have shut your mouth on December 14 and kept it shut.


Over an outlier?
 
2013-03-22 02:38:54 PM

CujoQuarrel: Community Agitator: Well, regardless of WHAT restriction they end up having, at least they will put agents on every road entering New York state to search every vehicle coming in from a different state that might sell the 15 or 30 round magazines.

For the children.

Well, according to their new logic it seems to me that you can have any size magazine as long as you only put 7 rounds in it. There is no difference to a 10 round clip loaded with 7 to a 30 round clip loaded with 7.



So, this mean the next mass shooting will be more tolerable because the shooter only loads 7 rounds into 15 round magazines.
Gotcha
 
2013-03-22 02:44:21 PM

Giltric: CPennypacker: Giltric: CPennypacker: Giltric: CPennypacker: Giltric: It is up to the NRA to craft more gun laws as a form of compromise with the gun control crowd?

Would it be up to pro abortion groups to pass better restrictions on abortion?

WTF people?

I was under the impression that the NRA's job was to go batshiat insane and alienate 90% of the country. Was that incorrect?

I think they are referring to the Republicans, who are going batshiat insane too because they are in the NRA's pocket.

It is up to a civil rights group, of which the NRA is the oldest in the country, to fight to expand civil rights, not compromise and help further restrict them.

Why aren't the democrats compromising on tax cuts for the wealthy?

lol the NRA is a civil rights group.

It is better to be thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt.

If you really believed that you would have shut your mouth on December 14 and kept it shut.

Over an outlier?


What an outlier looks like to Giltric

a.abcnews.com

I take it you don't really ascribe to that quote then
 
2013-03-22 02:51:37 PM

CPennypacker: Giltric: CPennypacker: Giltric: CPennypacker: Giltric: CPennypacker: Giltric: It is up to the NRA to craft more gun laws as a form of compromise with the gun control crowd?

Would it be up to pro abortion groups to pass better restrictions on abortion?

WTF people?

I was under the impression that the NRA's job was to go batshiat insane and alienate 90% of the country. Was that incorrect?

I think they are referring to the Republicans, who are going batshiat insane too because they are in the NRA's pocket.

It is up to a civil rights group, of which the NRA is the oldest in the country, to fight to expand civil rights, not compromise and help further restrict them.

Why aren't the democrats compromising on tax cuts for the wealthy?

lol the NRA is a civil rights group.

It is better to be thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt.

If you really believed that you would have shut your mouth on December 14 and kept it shut.

Over an outlier?

What an outlier looks like to Giltric

[a.abcnews.com image 392x221]

I take it you don't really ascribe to that quote then


CpennyPacker, literally standing on the corpses of children to advance his goal of civilian disarmament.
 
2013-03-22 02:51:47 PM

qorkfiend: I heard the compromise being floated is that you can own a 10-round magazine, but you can't put more than 7 rounds in it.


Good. If there's one thing you can count on a crazed assassin doing, it's obeying the law.
 
2013-03-22 02:53:14 PM

BayouOtter: CPennypacker: Giltric: CPennypacker: Giltric: CPennypacker: Giltric: CPennypacker: Giltric: It is up to the NRA to craft more gun laws as a form of compromise with the gun control crowd?

Would it be up to pro abortion groups to pass better restrictions on abortion?

WTF people?

I was under the impression that the NRA's job was to go batshiat insane and alienate 90% of the country. Was that incorrect?

I think they are referring to the Republicans, who are going batshiat insane too because they are in the NRA's pocket.

It is up to a civil rights group, of which the NRA is the oldest in the country, to fight to expand civil rights, not compromise and help further restrict them.

Why aren't the democrats compromising on tax cuts for the wealthy?

lol the NRA is a civil rights group.

It is better to be thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt.

If you really believed that you would have shut your mouth on December 14 and kept it shut.

Over an outlier?

What an outlier looks like to Giltric

[a.abcnews.com image 392x221]

I take it you don't really ascribe to that quote then

CpennyPacker, literally standing on the corpses of children to advance his goal of civilian disarmament.


Actually, my goal is for Giltric to shut up
 
MFK
2013-03-22 02:55:45 PM

CPennypacker: Actually, my goal is for Giltric to shut up


good luck with that.
 
2013-03-22 02:56:18 PM

CPennypacker: Giltric: CPennypacker: Giltric: CPennypacker: Giltric: CPennypacker: Giltric: It is up to the NRA to craft more gun laws as a form of compromise with the gun control crowd?

Would it be up to pro abortion groups to pass better restrictions on abortion?

WTF people?

I was under the impression that the NRA's job was to go batshiat insane and alienate 90% of the country. Was that incorrect?

I think they are referring to the Republicans, who are going batshiat insane too because they are in the NRA's pocket.

It is up to a civil rights group, of which the NRA is the oldest in the country, to fight to expand civil rights, not compromise and help further restrict them.

Why aren't the democrats compromising on tax cuts for the wealthy?

lol the NRA is a civil rights group.

It is better to be thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt.

If you really believed that you would have shut your mouth on December 14 and kept it shut.

Over an outlier?

What an outlier looks like to Giltric

[a.abcnews.com image 392x221]

I take it you don't really ascribe to that quote then


While sad and tragic, it is still an outlier.

Do you use emotional pleas when you are trying to get laid, or a raise?

I'm just wondering if the emotional angle works...or if people laugh at you when you use the emotional angle in other contexts.
 
2013-03-22 02:57:32 PM

MFK: CPennypacker: Actually, my goal is for Giltric to shut up

good luck with that.


Good point. If I can't get him to shut up half the time or even a little then what's the point in trying? He'll still be able to post.
 
2013-03-22 02:58:48 PM

Giltric: CPennypacker: Giltric: CPennypacker: Giltric: CPennypacker: Giltric: CPennypacker: Giltric: It is up to the NRA to craft more gun laws as a form of compromise with the gun control crowd?

Would it be up to pro abortion groups to pass better restrictions on abortion?

WTF people?

I was under the impression that the NRA's job was to go batshiat insane and alienate 90% of the country. Was that incorrect?

I think they are referring to the Republicans, who are going batshiat insane too because they are in the NRA's pocket.

It is up to a civil rights group, of which the NRA is the oldest in the country, to fight to expand civil rights, not compromise and help further restrict them.

Why aren't the democrats compromising on tax cuts for the wealthy?

lol the NRA is a civil rights group.

It is better to be thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt.

If you really believed that you would have shut your mouth on December 14 and kept it shut.

Over an outlier?

What an outlier looks like to Giltric

[a.abcnews.com image 392x221]

I take it you don't really ascribe to that quote then

While sad and tragic, it is still an outlier.

Do you use emotional pleas when you are trying to get laid, or a raise?

I'm just wondering if the emotional angle works...or if people laugh at you when you use the emotional angle in other contexts.


I'm guessing something like that that would be an interesting course of study for someone who refers to murdered children as an outlier. You should secure funding.
 
2013-03-22 03:00:16 PM
CPennypacker:Actually, my goal is for Giltric to shut up

You could click "Ignore" instead, but that wouldn't allow you to trot out your image.
 
2013-03-22 03:01:43 PM

Giltric: It is up to the NRA to craft more gun laws as a form of compromise with the gun control crowd?

Would it be up to pro abortion groups to pass better restrictions on abortion?

WTF people?


Pro-choice groups consistently are the only group advocating policies to reduce abortions (single payer, sex ed, birth control access).

Countries with more liberal policies have few abortions.

In the case of guns, the NRA and gun enthusiasts on the other hand have offered absolutely nothing to reduce gun violence in society.
 
2013-03-22 03:03:22 PM

DrRatchet: only impact law-abiding gun owners


like that Sandy Hook shooter. A law abiding, NRA, good Christian
 
2013-03-22 03:04:20 PM

GanjSmokr: CPennypacker:Actually, my goal is for Giltric to shut up

You could click "Ignore" instead, but that wouldn't allow you to trot out your image.


My image as a suave, sharp-tongued lady killer?
 
2013-03-22 03:04:55 PM

Princess Ryans Knickers: DrRatchet: only impact law-abiding gun owners

like that Sandy Hook shooter. A law abiding, NRA, good Christian


Citations?
 
2013-03-22 03:05:15 PM

mrshowrules: Giltric: It is up to the NRA to craft more gun laws as a form of compromise with the gun control crowd?

Would it be up to pro abortion groups to pass better restrictions on abortion?

WTF people?

Pro-choice groups consistently are the only group advocating policies to reduce abortions (single payer, sex ed, birth control access).

Countries with more liberal policies have few abortions.

In the case of guns, the NRA and gun enthusiasts on the other hand have offered absolutely nothing to reduce gun violence in society.


Yeah, because gun-related policies correct systemic racism, generational poverty, the drug war, broken mental/physical health care systems, and income inequality. Granted, those things would effect all violence, but if you think being shot to death sends you to Super-Hell as opposed to the regular hell of a knifing, then you might have a point.
 
2013-03-22 03:07:19 PM

Princess Ryans Knickers: DrRatchet: only impact law-abiding gun owners

like that Sandy Hook shooter. A law abiding, NRA, good Christian


The guy that murdered his mother, stole her property, and broke a score of laws before he killed some kids? The guy that tried, and failed to lawfully acquire weapons? The one that, if investigated after failing his background check might have been stopped? That guy?
 
2013-03-22 03:11:47 PM

CPennypacker: GanjSmokr: CPennypacker:Actually, my goal is for Giltric to shut up

You could click "Ignore" instead, but that wouldn't allow you to trot out your image.

My self-image as a suave, sharp-tongued lady killer?


Yea... that one.
 
2013-03-22 03:13:15 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: CptnSpldng: demaL-demaL-yeH: hardinparamedic: Woohoo!!! M1911s for everybody!!!!!

M1911: For those rare times when you don't have a shotgun.

/Just this once, I'll admit that it's difficult to find a good holster for a 12GA.

And where am I gonna find a plug to limit the magazine for a Lee-Enfield?

Doesn't apply unless the magazine is detachable and there's another "scary" feature.
Enfields and Garands are exempt.


Enfields' have a detatchable magazine and a bayonet lug.
 
2013-03-22 03:13:59 PM

GanjSmokr: CPennypacker: GanjSmokr: CPennypacker:Actually, my goal is for Giltric to shut up

You could click "Ignore" instead, but that wouldn't allow you to trot out your image.

My self-image as a suave, sharp-tongued lady killer?

Yea... that one.


Don't be a hater
 
2013-03-22 03:18:39 PM
It amazes me that people support these kind of laws even though they know it won't do a damn bit of good. Is that party politics or pandering for the ignorant vote?
 
2013-03-22 03:22:04 PM

violentsalvation: It amazes me that people support these kind of laws even though they know it won't do a damn bit of good. Is that party politics or pandering for the ignorant vote?


Well, you see what we should have happen is the government passes laws that are written through compromise and debate between stakeholders on the various sides of a given issue. But instead, one side controls the debate, a different side depending on where you are, surely, and so either dumb shiat that means well but doesn't really do anything helpful gets passed or no action is taken at all.

Freedom!
 
2013-03-22 03:22:24 PM

BayouOtter: mrshowrules: Giltric: It is up to the NRA to craft more gun laws as a form of compromise with the gun control crowd?

Would it be up to pro abortion groups to pass better restrictions on abortion?

WTF people?

Pro-choice groups consistently are the only group advocating policies to reduce abortions (single payer, sex ed, birth control access).

Countries with more liberal policies have few abortions.

In the case of guns, the NRA and gun enthusiasts on the other hand have offered absolutely nothing to reduce gun violence in society.

Yeah, because gun-related policies correct systemic racism, generational poverty, the drug war, broken mental/physical health care systems, and income inequality. Granted, those things would effect all violence, but if you think being shot to death sends you to Super-Hell as opposed to the regular hell of a knifing, then you might have a point.


You completely missed the point of the exchange.  What has the GOP done to reduce   racism, generational poverty, the drug war, broken mental/physical health care systems?

At least pro-choicers promote other solutions to reduce abortion.
 
2013-03-22 03:23:11 PM

BayouOtter: Princess Ryans Knickers: DrRatchet: only impact law-abiding gun owners

like that Sandy Hook shooter. A law abiding, NRA, good Christian

The guy that murdered his mother, stole her property, and broke a score of laws before he killed some kids? The guy that tried, and failed to lawfully acquire weapons? The one that, if investigated after failing his background check might have been stopped? That guy?


Technically didn't he inherit that rifle upon her death?
 
2013-03-22 03:25:48 PM

mrshowrules: BayouOtter: mrshowrules: Giltric: It is up to the NRA to craft more gun laws as a form of compromise with the gun control crowd?

Would it be up to pro abortion groups to pass better restrictions on abortion?

WTF people?

Pro-choice groups consistently are the only group advocating policies to reduce abortions (single payer, sex ed, birth control access).

Countries with more liberal policies have few abortions.

In the case of guns, the NRA and gun enthusiasts on the other hand have offered absolutely nothing to reduce gun violence in society.

Yeah, because gun-related policies correct systemic racism, generational poverty, the drug war, broken mental/physical health care systems, and income inequality. Granted, those things would effect all violence, but if you think being shot to death sends you to Super-Hell as opposed to the regular hell of a knifing, then you might have a point.

You completely missed the point of the exchange.  What has the GOP done to reduce   racism, generational poverty, the drug war, broken mental/physical health care systems?

At least pro-choicers promote other solutions to reduce abortion.


You're confusing republicans with pro-gun advocates. There's pro gun people on both sides of the aisle. This is partially why the awb was doa.
 
2013-03-22 03:29:26 PM

Rapmaster2000: First of all, subby, they're not called MAGAZINES.  They're called CLIPS.  Calling a clip a magazine tells me that you know nothing about guns and are possibly a homosexual.


Bad troll, Bad troll.. now go sit in the corner and think about what you done.
 
2013-03-22 03:37:49 PM

Fish in a Barrel: demaL-demaL-yeH: CptnSpldng: demaL-demaL-yeH: hardinparamedic: Woohoo!!! M1911s for everybody!!!!!

M1911: For those rare times when you don't have a shotgun.

/Just this once, I'll admit that it's difficult to find a good holster for a 12GA.

And where am I gonna find a plug to limit the magazine for a Lee-Enfield?

Doesn't apply unless the magazine is detachable and there's another "scary" feature.
Enfields and Garands are exempt.

Enfields' have a detatchable magazine and a bayonet lug.


1. They're C&R.
2. You load them with stripper clips. Swapping magazines to reload is a Very, Very, Extremely Bad Idea(TM).
 
2013-03-22 03:39:26 PM

mrshowrules: BayouOtter: Princess Ryans Knickers: DrRatchet: only impact law-abiding gun owners

like that Sandy Hook shooter. A law abiding, NRA, good Christian

The guy that murdered his mother, stole her property, and broke a score of laws before he killed some kids? The guy that tried, and failed to lawfully acquire weapons? The one that, if investigated after failing his background check might have been stopped? That guy?

Technically didn't he inherit that rifle upon her death?


Not a probate attorney, but I am relatively sure that.....oh, thanks, Wikipedia.

The slayer rule, in the common law of inheritance, is a doctrine that prohibits inheritance by a person who murders someone from whom he or she stands to inherit (e.g., a murderer does not inherit from parents he or she killed). In calculating inheritance of the decedent's estate, the effect of the slayer rule was that the slayer would be treated as though he or she had predeceased the person who had been murdered, therefore his or her share of the estate would pass to his or her issue.  While convicting someone of the crime of murder requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the slayer rule applies to civil law, not criminal law, so it is only necessary to prove the wrongful killing by a preponderance of the evidence, as in a wrongful death claim. This means that even a slayer who is acquitted of the murder in criminal court can still be divested of the inheritance by the civil court administering the estate.
 
2013-03-22 03:45:02 PM

Doom MD: You're confusing republicans with pro-gun advocates. There's pro gun people on both sides of the aisle. This is partially why the awb was doa.


I said "NRA/ gun enthusiasts" originally.  There are pro-choicers on both sides of the aisle also.  Generally speaking, pro-choicers generally have other ideas to help.  Gun nuts (in general and on both sides of the aisle) don't bring anything useful to the table.

The AWB is DOA because of politics.
 
2013-03-22 03:52:21 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Fish in a Barrel: demaL-demaL-yeH: CptnSpldng: demaL-demaL-yeH: hardinparamedic: Woohoo!!! M1911s for everybody!!!!!

M1911: For those rare times when you don't have a shotgun.

/Just this once, I'll admit that it's difficult to find a good holster for a 12GA.

And where am I gonna find a plug to limit the magazine for a Lee-Enfield?

Doesn't apply unless the magazine is detachable and there's another "scary" feature.
Enfields and Garands are exempt.

Enfields' have a detatchable magazine and a bayonet lug.

1. They're C&R.
2. You load them with stripper clips. Swapping magazines to reload is a Very, Very, Extremely Bad Idea(TM).


Unless there's a specific exemption for C&R (I doubt it) or bolt-actions (almost certainly true), then it's still a rifle with a 10-round detachable magazine and one of the "scary" features.  The fact that it wasn't standard procedure to actually utilize the detachable magazine is irrelevant.
 
2013-03-22 03:55:15 PM
I know what you're thinking. "Did he load 7 rounds into a 10 round magazine or did he fill it?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .40 Glock, the most popular handgun in the country, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?
 
2013-03-22 03:59:57 PM

jigger: I know what you're thinking. "Did he load 7 rounds into a 10 round magazine or did he fill it?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .40 Glock, the most popular handgun in the country, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?


I gots to know
 
2013-03-22 04:01:03 PM

mrshowrules: There are pro-choicers on both sides of the aisle also. Generally speaking, pro-choicers generally have other ideas to help. Gun nuts (in general and on both sides of the aisle) don't bring anything useful to the table.


Can you elaborate on this?
 
2013-03-22 04:13:01 PM

Frank N Stein: mrshowrules: There are pro-choicers on both sides of the aisle also. Generally speaking, pro-choicers generally have other ideas to help. Gun nuts (in general and on both sides of the aisle) don't bring anything useful to the table.

Can you elaborate on this?


I have upthread.   I was responding to someone else's comment.  Two unrelated issues.  Gun violence and abortion.

In summary, gun nuts don't want increased gun control but offer no other solutions.  Pro-choicers want abortion to remain legal but at least offer other solutions to reduce abortions in society.
 
2013-03-22 04:15:22 PM

Fish in a Barrel: Unless there's a specific exemption for C&R (I doubt it) or bolt-actions (almost certainly true), then it's still a rifle with a 10-round detachable magazine and one of the "scary" features.  The fact that it wasn't standard procedure to actually utilize the detachable magazine is irrelevant.


p. 18
Section 265.00 of penal law Chapter 198 of the laws of 2000 subdivision 22. (i,) e. (A.) bolt-action is exempt.
 
2013-03-22 04:20:03 PM

cameroncrazy1984: An M-1 also can't hold a 30 or 100 round magazine.


REALLY?

15 round standard issue GI Mag:

www.brownells.com

30 Round "Banana Magazine"

cdn2.armslist.com

There are 90 and 100 round drum magazines available for the gun as well, but they're pretty rare as the M1 Carbine is a pretty Niche weapon.

Also, it's EXPENSIVE AS HELL to shoot. I haven't shot mine in almost four years because of how much a box of 30 carbine costs. To compare, I could blow off 150 rounds of .40 S&W range ammo for the price that a box of 50 rounds of 30 carbine is going in my area.
 
2013-03-22 04:21:32 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Fish in a Barrel: Unless there's a specific exemption for C&R (I doubt it) or bolt-actions (almost certainly true), then it's still a rifle with a 10-round detachable magazine and one of the "scary" features.  The fact that it wasn't standard procedure to actually utilize the detachable magazine is irrelevant.

p. 18
Section 265.00 of penal law Chapter 198 of the laws of 2000 subdivision 22. (i,) e. (A.) bolt-action is exempt.


I figured that was the case.  And for the record, the only reason I'm knit picking this is because it's a slow day at work.
 
2013-03-22 04:24:07 PM

hardinparamedic: cameroncrazy1984: An M-1 also can't hold a 30 or 100 round magazine.

REALLY?

15 round standard issue GI Mag:

[www.brownells.com image 400x400]

30 Round "Banana Magazine"

[cdn2.armslist.com image 640x480]

There are 90 and 100 round drum magazines available for the gun as well, but they're pretty rare as the M1 Carbine is a pretty Niche weapon.

Also, it's EXPENSIVE AS HELL to shoot. I haven't shot mine in almost four years because of how much a box of 30 carbine costs. To compare, I could blow off 150 rounds of .40 S&W range ammo for the price that a box of 50 rounds of 30 carbine is going in my area.


Look up thread at the context of his post.  He's responding to a post about the M1 Garand.  That has a fixed, internal 8-round magazine.
 
2013-03-22 04:33:46 PM

mrshowrules: The AWB is DOA because of politics.


The AWB is dead because it didn't work the last time. All these laws have done so far is entrap citizens.

It was a con job from the start and people caught on to it.
Giving it a second chance would have sunk the remaining gun regulation effort.

/Not that politicians aren't bastards, but give them some credit for learning from their mistakes.
 
2013-03-22 04:36:28 PM
Sounds like a golden opportunity for magazine manufacturers.

/go get 'em, Condé Nast!
 
2013-03-22 04:52:17 PM

mrshowrules: Frank N Stein: mrshowrules: There are pro-choicers on both sides of the aisle also. Generally speaking, pro-choicers generally have other ideas to help. Gun nuts (in general and on both sides of the aisle) don't bring anything useful to the table.

Can you elaborate on this?

I have upthread.   I was responding to someone else's comment.  Two unrelated issues.  Gun violence and abortion.

In summary, gun nuts don't want increased gun control but offer no other solutions.


On the other hand, gun-control advocates aren't proposing anything except the AWB, which doesn't control crime at all, so.......?
 
2013-03-22 04:54:59 PM

Fish in a Barrel: Look up thread at the context of his post.  He's responding to a post about the M1 Garand.  That has a fixed, internal 8-round magazine.


Ah. Touche.

When he said "magazine", I assumed he meant the Carbine, since the M1 Garand loads from stripper clips.
 
2013-03-22 04:56:51 PM

hardinparamedic: Fish in a Barrel: Look up thread at the context of his post.  He's responding to a post about the M1 Garand.  That has a fixed, internal 8-round magazine.

Ah. Touche.

When he said "magazine", I assumed he meant the Carbine, since the M1 Garand loads from stripper with en-bloc clips.


I'm just being a pedantic douche today.
 
2013-03-22 04:58:55 PM

Epoch_Zero: Good. Any legislation that can actually be passed is a start. This is getting out of control.

Btw: 2883 gun deaths in the US since Newtown.


How many were criminals shot in the act?
 
2013-03-22 04:59:16 PM

mrshowrules: I said "NRA/ gun enthusiasts" originally. There are pro-choicers on both sides of the aisle also. Generally speaking, pro-choicers generally have other ideas to help. Gun nuts (in general and on both sides of the aisle) don't bring anything useful to the table.


Well, what do you define as "useful"? I wouldn't expect gun owners to express support for additional restrictions on gun rights any more than I'd expect the ACLU to support restrictions on free speech. Just because pro-gun-rights people haven't proposed gun control laws doesn't mean they haven't made suggestions that have merit.

I, for one, support all manner of things that I think would be reasonably effective at reducing violent crime: helping people in low-income communities through various methods (e.g. education and housing assistance, job training/assistance, etc.), ending the War on (some) Drugs, helping people with living meaningful alternatives to gang life, cracking down on gun and drug trafficking, better resources for the mentally ill, improved data reporting for the background check system, allowing private sellers to access the background check system, etc.

In regards to gun control, that ship sailed long ago. There's no real going back in regards to firearms being accessible -- sure, you can limit access through legal sources but that won't do much if you don't cut down on the illegal markets. With 3D printing of guns being relatively easy, even draconian restrictions have limited effect.
 

The AWB is DOA because of politics.

That, and the fact that it's a useless law that restricts lawful access to the most popular guns in the country (which are used only rarely in crime) and completely misses the point. It's been tried before and has had no effect on violent crime.

/slightly drunk. I blame any errors in my post on tasty beer.
 
2013-03-22 05:00:29 PM

HotWingConspiracy: "Rushed" meaning the gun lobby failed to halt it.


Meaning they didn't even follow NY's CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED reading period before voting on it.

The derp is strong with you.
 
2013-03-22 05:00:48 PM

BayouOtter: mrshowrules: Frank N Stein: mrshowrules: There are pro-choicers on both sides of the aisle also. Generally speaking, pro-choicers generally have other ideas to help. Gun nuts (in general and on both sides of the aisle) don't bring anything useful to the table.

Can you elaborate on this?

I have upthread.   I was responding to someone else's comment.  Two unrelated issues.  Gun violence and abortion.

In summary, gun nuts don't want increased gun control but offer no other solutions.

On the other hand, gun-control advocates aren't proposing anything except the AWB, which doesn't control crime at all, so.......?


Anti-gun advocate:  We need an assault weapons ban!
Pro-gun advocate:  We tried that.  It didn't do anything.
AGA: Oh my God!  Why are you being obstructionist?  Don't you care that people are dying?  Why don't you offer some solutions?  THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
PGA:  How about we improve mental health care and actually prosecute people who lie on their 4473s?
AGA:  I can't hear you over the sound of my outrage.
 
2013-03-22 05:05:12 PM

shamanwest: Maybe instead of biatching about the laws that get passed the gun lobby and their mouth pieces can sit down to discuss real effective compromises for legislation. When you stick your fingers in your ears and say "la la la" this is what happens.


Hey farkwad - "compromise" for your side is how much of the cake can we have this time. The answer is none so go farkyourself.
 
2013-03-22 05:10:54 PM

CujoQuarrel: Community Agitator: Well, regardless of WHAT restriction they end up having, at least they will put agents on every road entering New York state to search every vehicle coming in from a different state that might sell the 15 or 30 round magazines.

For the children.

Well, according to their new logic it seems to me that you can have any size magazine as long as you only put 7 rounds in it. There is no difference to a 10 round clip loaded with 7 to a 30 round clip loaded with 7.


Oh nice now I can miscount and become a fellon :)
 
2013-03-22 05:16:42 PM

Gosling: shamanwest: Maybe instead of biatching about the laws that get passed the gun lobby and their mouth pieces can sit down to discuss real effective compromises for legislation. When you stick your fingers in your ears and say "la la la" this is what happens.

Precisely. By stomping feet and offering nothing but refusal and distractions and saying absolutely nothing will ever work and threats to go out and buy All The Guns for purposes of some ill-defined Preparation, what has happened is the gun lobby removed itself from the actual substantive debate. If the gun-control legislation that ultimately results is hard-line and draconian, that is the gun lobby's fault for failure to seriously participate in its drafting. They had their chance to provide real insight. They refused, adamantly refused, to do so. So the legislation was written without them.


Debate?  There was no farking debate.  Did you miss it where the bill was crammed down the throat of the citizenry as fast as they could specifically to eliminate debate?

Besides... NYS already has an AWB and draconian gun laws.  There should be no more compromise.
 
2013-03-22 05:23:26 PM

Princess Ryans Knickers: DrRatchet: only impact law-abiding gun owners

like that Sandy Hook shooter. A law abiding, NRA, good Christian


Bullshiat.
 
2013-03-22 05:52:17 PM

Epoch_Zero: Good. Any legislation that can actually be passed is a start. This is getting out of control.

Btw: 2883 gun deaths in the US since Newtown.


How many dead from obesity related problems? Forced exercise for all.
 
2013-03-22 05:59:04 PM

hardinparamedic: Woohoo!!! M1911s for everybody!!!!!


probably been THISd several dozen times but

THIS
 
2013-03-22 06:12:31 PM

BayouOtter: Princess Ryans Knickers: DrRatchet: only impact law-abiding gun owners

like that Sandy Hook shooter. A law abiding, NRA, good Christian

The guy that murdered his mother, stole her property, and broke a score of laws before he killed some kids? The guy that tried, and failed to lawfully acquire weapons? The one that, if investigated after failing his background check might have been stopped? That guy?


Holy crap, the VP actually said that there was no time to prosecute people who lie on their background checks. I mean it comes from the Daily Caller, and might be a little suspect but of the Administration is saying fark it we are not going to enforce a law that might do some good. we are in trouble. Also end the War on Drugs, and do make sure that Psyche Coverage is mandatory in the Healthcare reform policies.
 
2013-03-22 06:31:08 PM

BMulligan: Car_Ramrod: snowjack: if a law abiding citizen gets caught in a firefight through no fault of their own

As will happen. Got caught in 3 firefights just last week.

I guffawed at that line, and chortled at your response.


Sure, mock away. But think about it: how often do business owners use guns to defend themselves from armed robbers, compared with how often mass shootings happen? Jewelry stores, convenience stores, pawn shops... armed robberies don't generally make national news. But those are the people these laws will really be disarming. Just because (armed) police create a nice soft comfy environment for you where you don't normally have to think about these things, doesn't mean they don't happen.
 
2013-03-22 06:35:38 PM
Fish in a Barrel:
Anti-gun advocate:  We need an assault weapons ban!
Pro-gun advocate:  We tried that.  It didn't do anything.
AGA: Oh my God!  Why are you being obstructionist?  Don't you care that people are dying?  Why don't you offer some solutions?  THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
PGA:  How about we improve mental health care and actually prosecute people who lie on their 4473s?
AGA:  I can't hear you over the sound of my outrage.


 I totally agree with you. But you have to admit it's kinda interesting how the Right didn't give a shiat about the public availability of health care, especially mental health care, until the Left started talking gun control.
 
2013-03-22 06:50:24 PM

snowjack: Fish in a Barrel:
Anti-gun advocate:  We need an assault weapons ban!
Pro-gun advocate:  We tried that.  It didn't do anything.
AGA: Oh my God!  Why are you being obstructionist?  Don't you care that people are dying?  Why don't you offer some solutions?  THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
PGA:  How about we improve mental health care and actually prosecute people who lie on their 4473s?
AGA:  I can't hear you over the sound of my outrage.

 I totally agree with you. But you have to admit it's kinda interesting how the Right didn't give a shiat about the public availability of health care, especially mental health care, until the Left started talking gun control.




The left never stopped talking about gun control. They've been on this tilt since the sixties and have sponsored hundreds of laws nation wide.

What happened was all the crazies abandoned in the aftermath of our mental health collapse have started to Spill out of the woodwork, committing more brazen attacks (probably influenced,in no small part, by popular media and constant coverage of these attacks).
You now have a mental health problem to go along with your drug war problems.
 
2013-03-22 06:56:09 PM

snowjack: BMulligan: Car_Ramrod: snowjack: if a law abiding citizen gets caught in a firefight through no fault of their own

As will happen. Got caught in 3 firefights just last week.

I guffawed at that line, and chortled at your response.

Sure, mock away. But think about it: how often do business owners use guns to defend themselves from armed robbers, compared with how often mass shootings happen? Jewelry stores, convenience stores, pawn shops... armed robberies don't generally make national news. But those are the people these laws will really be disarming. Just because (armed) police create a nice soft comfy environment for you where you don't normally have to think about these things, doesn't mean they don't happen.


According to the FBI, approximately 354,400 armed robberies in 2011. And no proposed laws that I've seen would disarm any of the business owners, assuming they're not criminals or mentally ill.
Would you be so kind as to provide a citation of a law that would?
 
2013-03-22 07:20:29 PM

Epoch_Zero: Good. Any legislation that can actually be passed is a start. This is getting out of control.

Btw: 2883 gun deaths in the US since Newtown.



Citation please
 
2013-03-22 07:55:21 PM

Epoch_Zero: Good. Any legislation that can actually be passed is a start. This is getting out of control.

Btw: 2883 gun deaths in the US since Newtown.


How many of these occurred with firearms that were already illegal?
 
2013-03-22 08:08:15 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: snowjack: BMulligan: Car_Ramrod: snowjack: if a law abiding citizen gets caught in a firefight through no fault of their own

As will happen. Got caught in 3 firefights just last week.

I guffawed at that line, and chortled at your response.

Sure, mock away. But think about it: how often do business owners use guns to defend themselves from armed robbers, compared with how often mass shootings happen? Jewelry stores, convenience stores, pawn shops... armed robberies don't generally make national news. But those are the people these laws will really be disarming. Just because (armed) police create a nice soft comfy environment for you where you don't normally have to think about these things, doesn't mean they don't happen.

According to the FBI, approximately 354,400 armed robberies in 2011. And no proposed laws that I've seen would disarm any of the business owners, assuming they're not criminals or mentally ill.
Would you be so kind as to provide a citation of a law that would?


My original post was complaining about outlawing the standard magazines that came in the box with the Smith & Wesson 9mm I bought for home defense, which carries 17 rounds. Probably a similar capacity Joe Biden's Beretta handgun, which in 2008 he promised 'would not be messed with' in an Obama presidency. One of the promises I had strongly in mind when I gave him my vote in 2008.
 
2013-03-22 11:35:21 PM

hardinparamedic: cameroncrazy1984: An M-1 also can't hold a 30 or 100 round magazine.

REALLY?

15 round standard issue GI Mag:

[www.brownells.com image 400x400]

30 Round "Banana Magazine"

[cdn2.armslist.com image 640x480]

There are 90 and 100 round drum magazines available for the gun as well, but they're pretty rare as the M1 Carbine is a pretty Niche weapon.

Also, it's EXPENSIVE AS HELL to shoot. I haven't shot mine in almost four years because of how much a box of 30 carbine costs. To compare, I could blow off 150 rounds of .40 S&W range ammo for the price that a box of 50 rounds of 30 carbine is going in my area.


Oh look, another idiot that doesn't understand the difference between a Garand and a Carbine. I bet you think they're both the same platform too, eh?
 
2013-03-23 12:03:53 AM
Voting for gun coontroll is political suicide for any politician that isn't elected solely by frightened inner city dwellers.   When most of this coontry is populated by by people that want or have to live in the inner city, you moonbats will get your "control" (no guns of any kind for anybody).  Until then you can spew your retarded, misguided, emotionally contaminated shiat all you want but you will still be wrong every single farking time.

/think of the children
//coont
 
2013-03-23 01:28:01 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Oh look, another idiot that doesn't understand the difference between a Garand and a Carbine. I bet you think they're both the same platform too, eh?


Oh, look. Someone who mentioned M1 and Magazine in the same sentence, and expects to be taken as talking about the full sized, clip-fed version.

You're the special kind of stupid, especially since I own an M1 Carbine.
 
2013-03-23 01:35:50 AM

hardinparamedic: Oh, look. Someone who mentioned M1 and Magazine in the same sentence, and expects to be taken as talking about the full sized, clip-fed version.


Hey, it's not my fault you can't read. The discussion was about the Garand, and I said that it doesn't accept magazines.

Apparently owning an M-1 Carbine doesn't make you read better.
 
2013-03-23 01:40:25 AM
Oh, and if you knew anything about the weapon you "supposedly" own, you would know that the M-1 Carbine has literally nothing to do with the Garand aside from the designation "M-1." They're not even the same caliber. They don't share any parts. They are literally nothing alike.
 
2013-03-23 01:41:22 AM

Epoch_Zero: Good. Any legislation that can actually be passed is a start. This is getting out of control.

Btw: 2883 gun deaths in the US since Newtown.


How many lives would've been saved by a <7 round magazine law?
 
2013-03-23 02:03:20 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Oh, and if you knew anything about the weapon you "supposedly" own, you would know that the M-1 Carbine has literally nothing to do with the Garand aside from the designation "M-1." They're not even the same caliber. They don't share any parts. They are literally nothing alike.


That's fine. You can believe me or not. Quite frankly, it doesn't affect me either way. If you'd like, you can leave me your email address, and when I go to my parents house in Savannah sunday, I'll be happy to open up the safe and take a picture of the collection I have bought/inherited over the past few years.

However, just for fun, let's look at what you wrote.

Your original post:

cameroncrazy1984:
 An M-1 also can't hold a 30 or 100 round magazine.

Oh look. You're mad because you got called out on making a purposely vague post to bait responses by just listing the military designation of numerous weapons systems, and then act smug because other people can't read your mind and automatically deduct that you're talking about a clip fed rifle when you mention an M-descriptor applied to multiple weapons, and mention magazines.

And actually, (fun fact) they DO share a part with the Garand - the buttplate screws in the M1 Fixed Stock version.

www.myfacewhen.net
 
2013-03-23 02:04:57 AM

Community Agitator: CujoQuarrel: Community Agitator: Well, regardless of WHAT restriction they end up having, at least they will put agents on every road entering New York state to search every vehicle coming in from a different state that might sell the 15 or 30 round magazines.

For the children.

Well, according to their new logic it seems to me that you can have any size magazine as long as you only put 7 rounds in it. There is no difference to a 10 round clip loaded with 7 to a 30 round clip loaded with 7.


So, this mean the next mass shooting will be more tolerable because the shooter only loads 7 rounds into 15 round magazines.
Gotcha


Yep. If the mass shooter had loaded more than 7 it would have been illegal
 
2013-03-23 02:10:28 AM

CPennypacker: Subby and the Post are apparently unfamiliar with the mathematical concept of "greater than"


Of course they are! The 2nd Amendment is in DANGER (??) There's no time for your liberal "facts" and "figures"!!! RUN! RUN OUT AND BUY A GUN!!
 
2013-03-23 02:13:11 AM

cameroncrazy1984: They're not even the same caliber.


This just in cameroncrazy1984 has no farking clue what the the 30 in 30-06 represents

I'm Ric Romero
 
2013-03-23 02:28:08 AM

hardinparamedic: making a purposely vague post


The post isn't vague if you read the entire conversation. You'll notice that the Garand is mentioned in several other posts that were replied to. Again, not my fault you can't read.

Rivetman1.0: cameroncrazy1984: They're not even the same caliber.

This just in cameroncrazy1984 has no farking clue what the the 30 in 30-06 represents

I'm Ric Romero


Okay, go ahead and try to use a .30-06 in an M-1 Carbine and see how well that works out for you.

Jesus Christ no wonder nobody gives a sh*t about you gun nuts. You don't even understand your own f*cking weapons.
 
2013-03-23 02:29:15 AM

hardinparamedic: nd actually, (fun fact) they DO share a part with the Garand - the buttplate screws in the M1 Fixed Stock version.


You have got to be kidding me if you're going to be that pedantic. Are you ready now to admit that you jumped on a comment that was made 12 hours ago without reading the conversation that it pertained to and were completely wrong about it?
 
2013-03-23 02:38:39 AM
How I imagine a conversation with  hardinparamedic goes:

Person A: A Ford truck is somewhat like a Chevy truck
Person B: Yeah, but a Ford can't haul 8 people.
hardinparamedic:Ha! You're wrong! Ford makes a car that can haul 8 people! You're a dumbass!
Person A and B: Are you functionally retarded? We're talking about trucks, you bleeding moron
hardinparamedic:Nuh uh, you were too vague!
 
2013-03-23 02:50:09 AM

cameroncrazy1984: How I imagine a conversation with  hardinparamedic goes:

Person A: A Ford truck is somewhat like a Chevy truck
Person B: Yeah, but a Ford can't haul 8 people.
hardinparamedic:Ha! You're wrong! Ford makes a car that can haul 8 people! You're a dumbass!
Person A and B: Are you functionally retarded? We're talking about trucks, you bleeding moron
hardinparamedic:Nuh uh, you were too vague!


u18chan.com

images.sodahead.com

p.vitalmx.com

We had fun here today.
 
2013-03-23 02:58:09 AM

self_medicated: Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: Was it Blazing Saddles where one of the characters said something like "Seven shots?!  What do you think this is a western?!"  Or was it something else?

I think you're thinking of Silver Streak.  Richard Pryor talking to Gene Wilder.


Got that, thanx! :-)
 
2013-03-23 07:15:08 AM
I bought a pistol today.  Fark New York.  Cumo is just guaranteeing he will NEVER win a national election
 
2013-03-23 08:09:16 AM

SCUBA_Archer: Epoch_Zero: Good. Any legislation that can actually be passed is a start. This is getting out of control.

Btw: 2883 gun deaths in the US since Newtown.

How many lives would've been saved by a <7 round magazine law?




None that can be proven, and that's part of the problem with gun control.

We've got this circular logic that says we need to pass a law because we need to pass a law, but no one looks back to see if these efforts are paying off.
Time on the floor that could be used to debate real solutions (mental health, crime fighting, drug war, etc...) gets burned off debating whether the magic number to save a life is 15, 10, 7 or 1.

In the end people don't remember the person who wasn't killed. They remember that the crime still happened.
Fear of being left helpless among criminals is what drives gun sales. Making it even harder to pass any law with teeth.
 
2013-03-23 08:45:57 AM

Bigdogdaddy: I bought a pistol today.  Fark New York.  Cumo is just guaranteeing he will NEVER win a national election


Yes, because the problem with Mitt Romney was that he signed an AWB in New York State.

hardinparamedic: cameroncrazy1984: How I imagine a conversation with  hardinparamedic goes:

Person A: A Ford truck is somewhat like a Chevy truck
Person B: Yeah, but a Ford can't haul 8 people.
hardinparamedic:Ha! You're wrong! Ford makes a car that can haul 8 people! You're a dumbass!
Person A and B: Are you functionally retarded? We're talking about trucks, you bleeding moron
hardinparamedic:Nuh uh, you were too vague!

[u18chan.com image 311x313]

[images.sodahead.com image 397x295]

[p.vitalmx.com image 400x400]

We had fun here today.


Oh, I had lots of fun. It's always a good time putting gun nuts in their place. Your worst enemy is a guy like me: Someone who actually knows about guns.
 
2013-03-23 08:46:34 AM
And by "New York State" I obviously meant Massachusetts.
 
2013-03-23 09:54:46 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Oh, I had lots of fun. It's always a good time putting gun nuts in their place


Do you have citations?
 
2013-03-23 10:21:43 AM

cameroncrazy1984: hardinparamedic: making a purposely vague post

The post isn't vague if you read the entire conversation. You'll notice that the Garand is mentioned in several other posts that were replied to. Again, not my fault you can't read.

Rivetman1.0: cameroncrazy1984: They're not even the same caliber.

This just in cameroncrazy1984 has no farking clue what the the 30 in 30-06 represents

I'm Ric Romero

Okay, go ahead and try to use a .30-06 in an M-1 Carbine and see how well that works out for you.

Jesus Christ no wonder nobody gives a sh*t about you gun nuts. You don't even understand your own f*cking weapons.


They're both .30 caliber. That doesn't mean that the bullets are interchangeable, of course, any more than a 7.62x54R Nagant round can be used in a standard AK-47, which takes 7.62x39. Same caliber, different cartridge.
 
2013-03-23 11:10:16 AM

Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Oh, I had lots of fun. It's always a good time putting gun nuts in their place

Do you have citations?


Yeah, the part where you two jumped into the middle of a discussion about the Garand and started talking about a completely different weapon. Good times.
 
2013-03-23 11:21:40 AM

Epoch_Zero: Good. Any legislation that can actually be passed is a start. This is getting out of control.

Btw: 2883 gun deaths in the US since Newtown.


Giving libertu for safety... Increase social services first. Remove rights last.
 
2013-03-23 11:40:42 AM
Guys, guys.  Let's not fight.  You've all clearly made mistakes; just admit them and move on.  Everyone jumping on cameron for being "wrong" about the M1 failed their reading comprehension check since it is perfectly clear, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he was talking about the Garand.  And cameron used the wrong terminology when he said they're not the same "caliber" when he meant that they're not chambered for the same cartridge.

Now everyone kiss and make up.
 
2013-03-23 12:20:13 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Oh, I had lots of fun. It's always a good time putting gun nuts in their place. Your worst enemy is a guy like me: Someone who actually knows about guns.


You are wrong again, >30 carbine and 30-06 are both >30 caliber.

When I am reloading either, I use the same bullet for either,dumbass
 
2013-03-23 12:24:56 PM

Rivetman1.0: cameroncrazy1984: Oh, I had lots of fun. It's always a good time putting gun nuts in their place. Your worst enemy is a guy like me: Someone who actually knows about guns.

You are wrong again, >30 carbine and 30-06 are both >30 caliber.

When I am reloading either, I use the same bullet for either,dumbass


So are you using 110gr round nose in .30-06, or 150gr spitzers in .30 carbine?
 
2013-03-23 12:42:52 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Oh, I had lots of fun. It's always a good time putting gun nuts in their place

Do you have citations?

Yeah, the part where you two jumped into the middle of a discussion about the Garand and started talking about a completely different weapon. Good times.


So you can quote the relevant info into your next post?

You would if you could, but you didn't because you can't.
 
2013-03-23 12:44:21 PM

Fish in a Barrel: So are you using 110gr round nose in .30-06, or 150gr spitzers in .30 carbine?


Speer 100 grain plinkers round nose half jacketed
 
2013-03-23 12:50:20 PM

Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Oh, I had lots of fun. It's always a good time putting gun nuts in their place

Do you have citations?

Yeah, the part where you two jumped into the middle of a discussion about the Garand and started talking about a completely different weapon. Good times.

So you can quote the relevant info into your next post?

You would if you could, but you didn't because you can't.


Ah, my mistake, that was Frank N' Stein.
 
2013-03-23 02:18:29 PM

way south: SCUBA_Archer: Epoch_Zero: Good. Any legislation that can actually be passed is a start. This is getting out of control.

Btw: 2883 gun deaths in the US since Newtown.

How many lives would've been saved by a <7 round magazine law?

None that can be proven, and that's part of the problem with gun control.

We've got this circular logic that says we need to pass a law because we need to pass a law, but no one looks back to see if these efforts are paying off.
Time on the floor that could be used to debate real solutions (mental health, crime fighting, drug war, etc...) gets burned off debating whether the magic number to save a life is 15, 10, 7 or 1.

In the end people don't remember the person who wasn't killed. They remember that the crime still happened.
Fear of being left helpless among criminals is what drives gun sales. Making it even harder to pass any law with teeth.


What is the point of passing laws with teeth? They don't have time or concerns for failed background checks. I watched the committee meetings, and police chiefs/commissioners as well as the Federal Attorney General give no farks about enforcing laws. They said,  "Stopping felons/prohibited guys from getting guns is not a priority. Background check failures are paper offenses and they are not on our radar. We don't care about stopping guns from getting in their hands, only arresting them when they have possession."

So long as self-defense is a purpose protected by the Second Amendment, you can't meaningfully ban people from having guns in a situation that can kill people. Because killing people is considered an acceptable and protected use for guns. You can make "reasonable restrictions," but almost anything that makes it hard to use a gun to murder someone also makes it hard to use a gun to commit justifiable homicide on someone. You can't really distinguish between the two in any technical (i.e. engineering-based and not legal) way. There are basically no magic murder guns that only commit murder but don't work for self-defense. At least none that aren't already heavily regulated (machine guns, explosives, etc.).
 
2013-03-25 07:00:48 PM

mrshowrules: I said "NRA/ gun enthusiasts" originally. There are pro-choicers on both sides of the aisle also. Generally speaking, pro-choicers generally have other ideas to help. Gun nuts (in general and on both sides of the aisle) don't bring anything useful to the table.


I'm an NRA/gun enthusiast.  My extremely abridged points:
1.  Any gun laws should target criminals more than law abiding types
A.  Actually prosecute disallowed people who attempt to purchase firearms
B.  Fix the background check system so it's more comprehensive
2.  Target violent crime, not just 'gun crime', and the reasons for it.
A.  Fix our schools
B.  Fix our mental healthcare system
C.  Fix it so that people have prospects:  Some sort of job program
D.  Target 'thug culture' for change, same with 'binge drinking' and such.
3.  Prisons should be about reform; not just punishment.
A.  Current systems in the USA make reoffending MORE likely, not less.
B.  Other countries manage to have a third of the recidivism rate at approximately a third of the prison time.
C.  How can we afford NOT to do this? They could spend 3X as much per prison year as we do and still come out ahead, I doubt they're doing so
4.  End the War on drugs
A.  Biggest source of police mistrust/corruption
B.  Eliminate a big group of victims(drug users/dealers can't call the police, allowing a predatory criminal sub-class to flourish)
C.  Treat addiction as medical, not criminal issue.
 
Displayed 219 of 219 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report