Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

2009 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Mar 2013 at 12:05 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 219 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report