|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
The last and only time a major population of America rebelled against the government, it wasn't against government tyranny, but quite the opposite. Our government wanted to give black people freedom, and a large militia formed in protest and killed hundreds of thousands of soldiers. I really don't think this capability of rebellion is worth what the idealists think it is. We've never rebelled against our government when they've done egregious things, we only rebel if they try to take our slaves (or our guns, I guess would be the next thing for some people).
We're a Republic now, and the only thing that is going to keep that honest is removing foreign and monetary interests from effecting the votes of individuals. The threat of death means nothing. Who're you going to threaten if our government becomes corrupt? Which vile henchman will need killing, and who will decide that?
Really, the whole argument is an insult to the 18th century spread of Democracy, and its historical uniqueness. Queen Elizabeth isn't going to colonize us or start demanding tributes to the crown. We've moved past this. You don't need your guns anymore, because as far as control of government is concerned, it isn't worth the scrap metal its made of.
|
On January 15 2013 12:57 Leporello wrote:
The last and only time a major population of America rebelled against the government, it wasn't against government tyranny, but quite the opposite. Our government wanted to give black people freedom, and a large militia formed in protest and killed hundreds of thousands of soldiers. I really don't think this capability of rebellion is worth what the idealists think it is. We've never rebelled against our government when they've done egregious things, we only rebel if they try to take our slaves (or our guns, I guess would be the next thing for some people).
We're a Republic now, and the only thing that is going to keep that honest is removing foreign and monetary interests from effecting the votes of individuals. The threat of death means nothing. Who're you going to threaten if our government becomes corrupt? Which vile henchman will need killing, and who will decide that?
Really, the whole argument is an insult to the 18th century spread of Democracy, and its historical uniqueness. Queen Elizabeth isn't going to colonize us or start demanding tributes to the crown. We've moved past this. You don't need your guns anymore, because as far as control of government is concerned, it isn't worth the scrap metal its made of.
Well considering that both World Wars were brought on by Franz Ferdinand's driver getting lost and Philip getting a sandwich at a shop that led to WW1 which led to the rise of Communism in Russia and combined with the resulting Depression the "democratic" rise of Hitler in Germany. For all we know something could have already happened or be happening as I type this that could cause the world to turn into a giant shit hole like countless times before.
If a something catastrophic happened in the economy we might see another extremist government rise out of the ashes. It's not like countless democratic nations have turned into dictatorships in the last 2 decades who knows what will happen in 200 years.
|
On January 15 2013 12:57 Leporello wrote:
The last and only time a major population of America rebelled against the government, it wasn't against government tyranny, but quite the opposite. Our government wanted to give black people freedom, and a large militia formed in protest and killed hundreds of thousands of soldiers. I really don't think this capability of rebellion is worth what the idealists think it is. We've never rebelled against our government when they've done egregious things, we only rebel if they try to take our slaves (or our guns, I guess would be the next thing for some people).
We're a Republic now, and the only thing that is going to keep that honest is removing foreign and monetary interests from effecting the votes of individuals. The threat of death means nothing. Who're you going to threaten if our government becomes corrupt? Which vile henchman will need killing, and who will decide that?
Really, the whole argument is an insult to the 18th century spread of Democracy, and its historical uniqueness. Queen Elizabeth isn't going to colonize us or start demanding tributes to the crown. We've moved past this. You don't need your guns anymore, because as far as control of government is concerned, it isn't worth the scrap metal its made of.
Another misinformed view of American history. Before secession, and during the vast majority of the civil war, it was only a very small minority of politicians and an even smaller percentage of people that wanted to "give black people freedom." The grand debate about slavery was about whether or not new territories would be formed as slave states or free labor states. This was more comparable at the time to them being republican or democrat however, because while the northern and (at the time) western states might have been "free states," the institution of slavery was still very much upheld within their borders. The build up to the civil war was, in many respects more of a struggle between the working class poor and the land owning aristocracy. This is of course a massive oversimplification, but in many ways it holds more true than dividing the two sides in terms of their views on slavery considering the decision to free slaves was still very controversial in the union after the Confederate secession. The Emancipation Proclamation, in fact, only freed the slaves in the Confederate territories and was largely concerned with bolstering the Unions standing army by allowing free blacks and escaped slaves to serve in the military. The fourteenth amendment, which provided citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States," was not ratified for another five years. Which was well after the end of the American Civil War.
Strangely enough, if you were to judge the rebellion in the American Civil war by military authority then it would seem the North were actually the rebels. While the majority of the federal government may have been in the Union, the majority of the military leadership (including all ranks of officers) joined the Confederacy. The ultimate reason the Union won was because they had higher numbers of people (including large amounts of new immigrants) along with the industrial capacity to arm them with firearms and ammunition. Eventually the Union found a general who was able to do math and who did not mind a messy victory in Grant, who's Wilderness campaign was closer to giving every many a rifle and telling him to walk south than it was a strategic military assault.
While the second amendment may not have played a crucial role in the American Civil War because of the proportionally large immigration at the time, without the thousands of volunteers who took up defense of Washington DC after the failed battle of Bull Run the Confederate Army might have been able to end the war in their favor almost immediately after it began.
Granted, this is a fairly well spun view of the Civil War that suits the purpose of this argument. Even with the volunteer forces defending Washington DC, the confederate army probably could have taken the city anyways if they had made that their goal. For what I'm sure was a good reason at the time, the Confederate strategy was to defend their lands, and legitimize their newly formed Confederacy rather than to re-unite with the Northern States. The bit about slavery though, is rather un-spun compared to what most people believe of it.
|
On January 15 2013 07:48 Sejanus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2013 07:35 Sway.746 wrote:
The 2nd amendment doesn't exist so that civilians can shoot animals or shoot guns for fun. It exists so that civilians can shoot the government if it becomes too corrupt and threatens freedom. You do understand how silly does it sound now? Times have changed. If the government becomes too corrupt the only thing civilians can do is elect a better one. Vote responsibly. A real war civilians against modern USA army.... not even funny. Probably it made sense when the amandment was created, sure. Not now.
Tell that to the Vietnamese (actually, bit late), or the Afghan's, I'm sure they'll be thrilled to hear they can all go home and stop fighting since they can't win with simple firearms against the modern United States Army. What a relief.
|
United States24768 Posts
http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_22376832/ny-seals-1st-state-gun-laws-since-newtown
The New York State Senate just passed Governor Cuomo's proposed new gun legislation, and the legislature is voting as we speak, I believe. If it passes, a few provisions:
- Private sales, except to family members, require background checks through a dealer
- New yorkers barred from buying assault weapons over the internet
- Failing to safely store a weapon could be a misdemeanor
- Ammo magazines are restricted from 10 to 7; current owners of high cap mags have 1 year to sell them out of state
- Being caught at home with 8 or more bullets in a mag could face a misdemeanor
- Stores that sell ammo will need to register, run background checks, keep a database of sales
- Therapists become required to report credible gun threats to the state (via mental health director)
- A patient's guns can be taken from them
- Increased sentences for the shooting of a first responder
- Assault weapons now include 1 'military feature' instead of needing 2; this includes pistol grip, folding stock, flash suppressor, bayonet mount, etc
- Current gun owners will have to register them (even though previously not needed to be registered)
Some of these I'm fine with, assuming I understand them correctly (1, 2, 3 if it's reasonable, 6, 7 if there is evidence that this will help, 8 if there are reasonable protections in place, 9). Some of them don't seem as good to me (4-5 what about guns like the M1 Garand that only come in 8 bullet blocks? What about starting by not letting new guns be designed to require high-capacity magazines?, 10 yea I'm worried someone is going to slaughter 26 school personel with a bayonet ._., 11 This is what happened in Britain, as they promised guns wouldn't be unilaterally taken away, right before they unilaterally took them away... and many Americans know this).
We should know soon what will happen.
edit: another article: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/15/16515653-new-york-poised-to-pass-major-gun-law-first-since-newtown-massacre?lite
edit2: you can watch the current proceedings: http://www.wgrz.com/news/article/196438/37/Assembly-Voting-on-New-NY-Gun-Laws
|
On January 16 2013 01:21 micronesia wrote:http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_22376832/ny-seals-1st-state-gun-laws-since-newtownThe New York State Senate just passed Governor Cuomo's proposed new gun legislation, and the legislature is voting as we speak, I believe. If it passes, a few provisions: - Private sales, except to family members, require background checks through a dealer
- New yorkers barred from buying assault weapons over the internet
- Failing to safely store a weapon could be a misdemeanor
- Ammo magazines are restricted from 10 to 7; current owners of high cap mags have 1 year to sell them out of state
- Being caught at home with 8 or more bullets in a mag could face a misdemeanor
- Stores that sell ammo will need to register, run background checks, keep a database of sales
- Therapists become required to report credible gun threats to the state (via mental health director)
- A patient's guns can be taken from them
- Increased sentences for the shooting of a first responder
- Assault weapons now include 1 'military feature' instead of needing 2; this includes pistol grip, folding stock, flash suppressor, bayonet mount, etc
- Current gun owners will have to register them (even though previously not needed to be registered)
Some of these I'm fine with, assuming I understand them correctly (1, 2, 3 if it's reasonable, 6, 7 if there is evidence that this will help, 8 if there are reasonable protections in place, 9). Some of them don't seem as good to me (4-5 what about guns like the M1 Garand that only come in 8 bullet blocks? What about starting by not letting new guns be designed to require high-capacity magazines?, 10 yea I'm worried someone is going to slaughter 26 school personel with a bayonet ._., 11 This is what happened in Britain, as they promised guns wouldn't be unilaterally taken away, right before they unilaterally took them away... and many Americans know this). We should know soon what will happen.
What a joke.
This will not be put up with. Most of Upstate and Western NY is going to pitch a fit over this, I can't imagine it will stand.
|
United States24768 Posts
I'm watching the stream and the articles are not entirely clear. Also, I misread or misstated something before: for clips of 8-10 rounds, you would be allowed to keep them in NYS as long as you don't put more than 7 rounds in them.
|
On January 16 2013 01:21 micronesia wrote:http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_22376832/ny-seals-1st-state-gun-laws-since-newtownThe New York State Senate just passed Governor Cuomo's proposed new gun legislation, and the legislature is voting as we speak, I believe. If it passes, a few provisions: - Private sales, except to family members, require background checks through a dealer
- New yorkers barred from buying assault weapons over the internet
- Failing to safely store a weapon could be a misdemeanor
- Ammo magazines are restricted from 10 to 7; current owners of high cap mags have 1 year to sell them out of state
- Being caught at home with 8 or more bullets in a mag could face a misdemeanor
- Stores that sell ammo will need to register, run background checks, keep a database of sales
- Therapists become required to report credible gun threats to the state (via mental health director)
- A patient's guns can be taken from them
- Increased sentences for the shooting of a first responder
- Assault weapons now include 1 'military feature' instead of needing 2; this includes pistol grip, folding stock, flash suppressor, bayonet mount, etc
- Current gun owners will have to register them (even though previously not needed to be registered)
Some of these I'm fine with, assuming I understand them correctly (1, 2, 3 if it's reasonable, 6, 7 if there is evidence that this will help, 8 if there are reasonable protections in place, 9). Some of them don't seem as good to me (4-5 what about guns like the M1 Garand that only come in 8 bullet blocks? What about starting by not letting new guns be designed to require high-capacity magazines?, 10 yea I'm worried someone is going to slaughter 26 school personel with a bayonet ._., 11 This is what happened in Britain, as they promised guns wouldn't be unilaterally taken away, right before they unilaterally took them away... and many Americans know this). We should know soon what will happen.
Looks like the gun owners really were the losers after the shootout incident.
|
The "assault weapons" ban is as stupid as I suspected. Now people will buy mini14s because they aren't the scary black color with useless features that don't make it anymore deadly than a mini. And database of ammo sales wtf?
More laws that do nothing but pretend to keep people safe.
|
On January 15 2013 09:01 usNEUX wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2013 08:29 StarStrider wrote:On January 15 2013 07:48 Sejanus wrote:On January 15 2013 07:35 Sway.746 wrote:
The 2nd amendment doesn't exist so that civilians can shoot animals or shoot guns for fun. It exists so that civilians can shoot the government if it becomes too corrupt and threatens freedom. You do understand how silly does it sound now? Times have changed. If the government becomes too corrupt the only thing civilians can do is elect a better one. Vote responsibly. A real war civilians against modern USA army.... not even funny. Probably it made sense when the amandment was created, sure. Not now. I'm pretty sure that Iraqi 'insurgents' (AKA objectively: freedom fighters) would have something to say to your 'impenetrable US military' argument. What were we at, 4000~ coalition forces dead? The fight was neverending, such that most Americans turned against a war that most Americans supported. But in my opinion, there just needs to be enough ubiquitous resistance on the ground that our boys side with the people instead of the government. And that doesn't take much more than an AR and courage. This "resist the government" crap that the nuttiest of the nuts keep spouting is the worst possible argument for gun control. Seriously, just listen to yourselves for a minute. What are you going to do, start shooting the cops and anyone from Washington if you decide for yourself that the government is a communist dictatorship (something that I bet some of these Tea Party crazies are close to doing)? As for the "impenetrable US military" bit, guess how many we've killed for every one of our soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors who have died? I actually don't know the answer, but I can tell you one thing: IT'S A SHITLOAD. If, god forbid, the US military was ever turned against its own people, those hillbillies would have NO chance. I am a soldier and I know what we can do.
This is just an argument for not having a standing army, which translates into a need for militias for our national defense, which translates into a need for the second amendment and military style weaponry for civilians.
|
So many Americans raging over this. Obvious answer is: no, people should not be allowed to own and/or carry guns. Calling gun ban stupid. Glad im European...
User was warned for this post
|
On January 16 2013 02:13 Integra wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 01:21 micronesia wrote:http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_22376832/ny-seals-1st-state-gun-laws-since-newtownThe New York State Senate just passed Governor Cuomo's proposed new gun legislation, and the legislature is voting as we speak, I believe. If it passes, a few provisions: - Private sales, except to family members, require background checks through a dealer
- New yorkers barred from buying assault weapons over the internet
- Failing to safely store a weapon could be a misdemeanor
- Ammo magazines are restricted from 10 to 7; current owners of high cap mags have 1 year to sell them out of state
- Being caught at home with 8 or more bullets in a mag could face a misdemeanor
- Stores that sell ammo will need to register, run background checks, keep a database of sales
- Therapists become required to report credible gun threats to the state (via mental health director)
- A patient's guns can be taken from them
- Increased sentences for the shooting of a first responder
- Assault weapons now include 1 'military feature' instead of needing 2; this includes pistol grip, folding stock, flash suppressor, bayonet mount, etc
- Current gun owners will have to register them (even though previously not needed to be registered)
Some of these I'm fine with, assuming I understand them correctly (1, 2, 3 if it's reasonable, 6, 7 if there is evidence that this will help, 8 if there are reasonable protections in place, 9). Some of them don't seem as good to me (4-5 what about guns like the M1 Garand that only come in 8 bullet blocks? What about starting by not letting new guns be designed to require high-capacity magazines?, 10 yea I'm worried someone is going to slaughter 26 school personel with a bayonet ._., 11 This is what happened in Britain, as they promised guns wouldn't be unilaterally taken away, right before they unilaterally took them away... and many Americans know this). We should know soon what will happen. Looks like the gun owners really were the losers after the shootout incident.
Its so ridiculous too. Some huge percentage of gun-related deaths are from handguns, it's like 90-95% depending on what sources you listen to. This legislation does nothing about them. And of the remaining 5-10% which are long-guns (shotguns, rifles), an extremely small number of those are semi-automatics. This legislation is only against the few guns which actually aren't used in crimes. If it's about saving lives like the lawmakers say, getting rid of semi-autos is pointless.
|
United States24768 Posts
In New York someone is pointing out, of the 760 (~) murders in 2012, 5 (or maybe less) murders were committed with guns that are controlled by this proposed law. This is a bill that that the governor forced representatives to have a late night session over, because it furthers his political agenda.
|
On January 16 2013 02:43 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 02:13 Integra wrote:On January 16 2013 01:21 micronesia wrote:http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_22376832/ny-seals-1st-state-gun-laws-since-newtownThe New York State Senate just passed Governor Cuomo's proposed new gun legislation, and the legislature is voting as we speak, I believe. If it passes, a few provisions: - Private sales, except to family members, require background checks through a dealer
- New yorkers barred from buying assault weapons over the internet
- Failing to safely store a weapon could be a misdemeanor
- Ammo magazines are restricted from 10 to 7; current owners of high cap mags have 1 year to sell them out of state
- Being caught at home with 8 or more bullets in a mag could face a misdemeanor
- Stores that sell ammo will need to register, run background checks, keep a database of sales
- Therapists become required to report credible gun threats to the state (via mental health director)
- A patient's guns can be taken from them
- Increased sentences for the shooting of a first responder
- Assault weapons now include 1 'military feature' instead of needing 2; this includes pistol grip, folding stock, flash suppressor, bayonet mount, etc
- Current gun owners will have to register them (even though previously not needed to be registered)
Some of these I'm fine with, assuming I understand them correctly (1, 2, 3 if it's reasonable, 6, 7 if there is evidence that this will help, 8 if there are reasonable protections in place, 9). Some of them don't seem as good to me (4-5 what about guns like the M1 Garand that only come in 8 bullet blocks? What about starting by not letting new guns be designed to require high-capacity magazines?, 10 yea I'm worried someone is going to slaughter 26 school personel with a bayonet ._., 11 This is what happened in Britain, as they promised guns wouldn't be unilaterally taken away, right before they unilaterally took them away... and many Americans know this). We should know soon what will happen. Looks like the gun owners really were the losers after the shootout incident. Its so ridiculous too. Some huge percentage of gun-related deaths are from handguns, it's like 90-95% depending on what sources you listen to. This legislation does nothing about them. And of the remaining 5-10% which are long-guns (shotguns, rifles), an extremely small number of those are semi-automatics. This legislation is only against the few guns which actually aren't used in crimes. If it's about saving lives like the lawmakers say, getting rid of semi-autos is pointless.
I never said I was against it, and the reason behind my stance is that I have yet to hear a argument for why civilians should carry weapons which is considered as military. I just don't see the value behind owning a high-rate fire arms.
|
On January 16 2013 02:46 Integra wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 02:43 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 02:13 Integra wrote:On January 16 2013 01:21 micronesia wrote:http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_22376832/ny-seals-1st-state-gun-laws-since-newtownThe New York State Senate just passed Governor Cuomo's proposed new gun legislation, and the legislature is voting as we speak, I believe. If it passes, a few provisions: - Private sales, except to family members, require background checks through a dealer
- New yorkers barred from buying assault weapons over the internet
- Failing to safely store a weapon could be a misdemeanor
- Ammo magazines are restricted from 10 to 7; current owners of high cap mags have 1 year to sell them out of state
- Being caught at home with 8 or more bullets in a mag could face a misdemeanor
- Stores that sell ammo will need to register, run background checks, keep a database of sales
- Therapists become required to report credible gun threats to the state (via mental health director)
- A patient's guns can be taken from them
- Increased sentences for the shooting of a first responder
- Assault weapons now include 1 'military feature' instead of needing 2; this includes pistol grip, folding stock, flash suppressor, bayonet mount, etc
- Current gun owners will have to register them (even though previously not needed to be registered)
Some of these I'm fine with, assuming I understand them correctly (1, 2, 3 if it's reasonable, 6, 7 if there is evidence that this will help, 8 if there are reasonable protections in place, 9). Some of them don't seem as good to me (4-5 what about guns like the M1 Garand that only come in 8 bullet blocks? What about starting by not letting new guns be designed to require high-capacity magazines?, 10 yea I'm worried someone is going to slaughter 26 school personel with a bayonet ._., 11 This is what happened in Britain, as they promised guns wouldn't be unilaterally taken away, right before they unilaterally took them away... and many Americans know this). We should know soon what will happen. Looks like the gun owners really were the losers after the shootout incident. Its so ridiculous too. Some huge percentage of gun-related deaths are from handguns, it's like 90-95% depending on what sources you listen to. This legislation does nothing about them. And of the remaining 5-10% which are long-guns (shotguns, rifles), an extremely small number of those are semi-automatics. This legislation is only against the few guns which actually aren't used in crimes. If it's about saving lives like the lawmakers say, getting rid of semi-autos is pointless. I never said I was against it, and the reason behind my stance is that I have yet to hear a argument for why civilians should carry weapons which is considered as military. I just don't see the value behind owning a high-rate fire arms.
I didn't say you were against it.
But if the government's got them, we need them too. The whole point behind the Second Amendment is to be able to defend against tyranny, both foreign and domestic. If the tyrant's got semi-automatics, the people need them too. Before you (or someone else) tries it, the US military is not all-powerful. Guerrilla fighters would totally put up a good fight. The guerrillas would have no real central structure which could be targeted, while the tyrannical military would have to defend every factory, refinery, powerplant, bridge, harbor, and dam in the country. The tyrants also have to keep the civilians on their side, who will quickly tire of fighting their own neighbors. There are no civilian guerrillas though, so there's no war weariness for them to worry about. Last, the drones can't bomb what they can't find. There are forests and swamps all over the country that are too dense even for infra-red cameras to peer into. I'm not saying it'd be a cakewalk for the guerrillas, it wouldn't. But war is not about the kill-death ratio. It's about willingness to fight. If it was about the K/D ratio, the US totally won in Vietnam, the NVA and VC suffered about 10 times as many casualties as the US. But they still won. The US left, and North Vietnam soon took over South Vietnam.
And besides, why shouldn't civilians have them? As you can see, they're almost never used in crimes. I shouldn't have to provide a reason to have them, you should have to provide a reason I shouldn't have them. Innocent until proven guilty right?
|
Almost all semiautomatic firearms fire as fast as you pull the trigger, including handguns... This does nothing it practically bans semi auto rifles that are black and come with cosmetic features while leaving semiauto rifles like the mini alone. Not to mention you can expect a flood of new rifles to hit the market that won't have pistol grips and what not to be completely legal and just as deadly. It just makes no sense.
![[image loading]](http://ultimak.com/products/EOT512Miniinst.jpg)
This will be completely legal because it doesn't look "military" yet it has the same efficiency in killing. Guns like this will become very popular post ban in NY because they have the same exact function and honestly they are much higher quality than your typical ar15.
|
On January 16 2013 02:46 Integra wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 02:43 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 02:13 Integra wrote:On January 16 2013 01:21 micronesia wrote:http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_22376832/ny-seals-1st-state-gun-laws-since-newtownThe New York State Senate just passed Governor Cuomo's proposed new gun legislation, and the legislature is voting as we speak, I believe. If it passes, a few provisions: - Private sales, except to family members, require background checks through a dealer
- New yorkers barred from buying assault weapons over the internet
- Failing to safely store a weapon could be a misdemeanor
- Ammo magazines are restricted from 10 to 7; current owners of high cap mags have 1 year to sell them out of state
- Being caught at home with 8 or more bullets in a mag could face a misdemeanor
- Stores that sell ammo will need to register, run background checks, keep a database of sales
- Therapists become required to report credible gun threats to the state (via mental health director)
- A patient's guns can be taken from them
- Increased sentences for the shooting of a first responder
- Assault weapons now include 1 'military feature' instead of needing 2; this includes pistol grip, folding stock, flash suppressor, bayonet mount, etc
- Current gun owners will have to register them (even though previously not needed to be registered)
Some of these I'm fine with, assuming I understand them correctly (1, 2, 3 if it's reasonable, 6, 7 if there is evidence that this will help, 8 if there are reasonable protections in place, 9). Some of them don't seem as good to me (4-5 what about guns like the M1 Garand that only come in 8 bullet blocks? What about starting by not letting new guns be designed to require high-capacity magazines?, 10 yea I'm worried someone is going to slaughter 26 school personel with a bayonet ._., 11 This is what happened in Britain, as they promised guns wouldn't be unilaterally taken away, right before they unilaterally took them away... and many Americans know this). We should know soon what will happen. Looks like the gun owners really were the losers after the shootout incident. Its so ridiculous too. Some huge percentage of gun-related deaths are from handguns, it's like 90-95% depending on what sources you listen to. This legislation does nothing about them. And of the remaining 5-10% which are long-guns (shotguns, rifles), an extremely small number of those are semi-automatics. This legislation is only against the few guns which actually aren't used in crimes. If it's about saving lives like the lawmakers say, getting rid of semi-autos is pointless. I never said I was against it, and the reason behind my stance is that I have yet to hear a argument for why civilians should carry weapons which is considered as military. I just don't see the value behind owning a high-rate fire arms.
I highly doubt civilians are going to go about invading countries they have no business in and creating chaos and havoc across the globe. Maybe its the government that isn't responsible enough to have these weapons at their disposal.
|
On January 16 2013 02:58 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 02:46 Integra wrote:On January 16 2013 02:43 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 02:13 Integra wrote:On January 16 2013 01:21 micronesia wrote:http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_22376832/ny-seals-1st-state-gun-laws-since-newtownThe New York State Senate just passed Governor Cuomo's proposed new gun legislation, and the legislature is voting as we speak, I believe. If it passes, a few provisions: - Private sales, except to family members, require background checks through a dealer
- New yorkers barred from buying assault weapons over the internet
- Failing to safely store a weapon could be a misdemeanor
- Ammo magazines are restricted from 10 to 7; current owners of high cap mags have 1 year to sell them out of state
- Being caught at home with 8 or more bullets in a mag could face a misdemeanor
- Stores that sell ammo will need to register, run background checks, keep a database of sales
- Therapists become required to report credible gun threats to the state (via mental health director)
- A patient's guns can be taken from them
- Increased sentences for the shooting of a first responder
- Assault weapons now include 1 'military feature' instead of needing 2; this includes pistol grip, folding stock, flash suppressor, bayonet mount, etc
- Current gun owners will have to register them (even though previously not needed to be registered)
Some of these I'm fine with, assuming I understand them correctly (1, 2, 3 if it's reasonable, 6, 7 if there is evidence that this will help, 8 if there are reasonable protections in place, 9). Some of them don't seem as good to me (4-5 what about guns like the M1 Garand that only come in 8 bullet blocks? What about starting by not letting new guns be designed to require high-capacity magazines?, 10 yea I'm worried someone is going to slaughter 26 school personel with a bayonet ._., 11 This is what happened in Britain, as they promised guns wouldn't be unilaterally taken away, right before they unilaterally took them away... and many Americans know this). We should know soon what will happen. Looks like the gun owners really were the losers after the shootout incident. Its so ridiculous too. Some huge percentage of gun-related deaths are from handguns, it's like 90-95% depending on what sources you listen to. This legislation does nothing about them. And of the remaining 5-10% which are long-guns (shotguns, rifles), an extremely small number of those are semi-automatics. This legislation is only against the few guns which actually aren't used in crimes. If it's about saving lives like the lawmakers say, getting rid of semi-autos is pointless. I never said I was against it, and the reason behind my stance is that I have yet to hear a argument for why civilians should carry weapons which is considered as military. I just don't see the value behind owning a high-rate fire arms. I didn't say you were against it. But if the government's got them, we need them too. The whole point behind the Second Amendment is to be able to defend against tyranny, both foreign and domestic. If the tyrant's got semi-automatics, the people need them too. Before you (or someone else) tries it, the US military is not all-powerful. Guerrilla fighters would totally put up a good fight. The guerrillas would have no real central structure which could be targeted, while the tyrannical military would have to defend every factory, refinery, powerplant, bridge, harbor, and dam in the country. The tyrants also have to keep the civilians on their side, who will quickly tire of fighting their own neighbors. There are no civilian guerrillas though, so there's no war weariness for them to worry about. Last, the drones can't bomb what they can't find. There are forests and swamps all over the country that are too dense even for infra-red cameras to peer into. And besides, why shouldn't civilians have them? As you can see, they're almost never used in crimes. I shouldn't have to provide a reason to have them, you should have to provide a reason I shouldn't have them. Innocent until proven guilty right?
Please drop the freedom fighter.argument its silly. Scotus already ruled the second amendment covers non militia citizens right to protect themselves with a firearm. So there's no reason to use that argument.
|
(off of micro's list of provisions)
1-3 I agree with. Its a real shame when you see stupid people not storing their guns properly and giveing the rest of people a bad name. Its a worse law in other states but I'd like to see what it means by "safely storing a weapon" and what it means on transporting them.
4. telling people to sell their mags out of state? What kind of horrible pass the problem onto some other poor state is this?
5. werid but would make a very understandable and loophole to a high capacity magazine provision.
6 is okay 7 brings me worry of a break of doctor patient confidentiality 8 9 is good 10 is a very understandable definition of what an "assault weapon" is while still reinforcing that its mostly a cosmetic thing. 11 is a big no no and will not fly in many parts of the state. People will register one or 2 guns when they have a dozen sitting in their gun safe. The only reason why the government wants to register your guns is to take them away later, this is exactly what people will think about this.
A ton of political agenda stuff in this nothing good will change for people and either side will just use it as fodder for the next election.
|
On January 16 2013 01:21 micronesia wrote:11 This is what happened in Britain, as they promised guns wouldn't be unilaterally taken away, right before they unilaterally took them away... and many Americans know this).
Farmers/game hunters all over the country still have guns.
I think gun owners need to take responsibility. I'm sorry that it's a sacrifice to have to give up your hobby and a strangely embedded part of your culture, but the legality and culture of gun ownership is partly to blame for child killings throughout the country (as well as a lot more murder). I'll say it again, idolising items designed to take lives will result in lives being taken.
How your hobby can be worth that much to you is beyond me. Abandon the human instinct to pass on the blame, accept that gun culture is a part of the cause, abandon that culture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
