New York's Gun Ban

[LemonCrush]

To those who said "it couldn't happen" or "they aren't trying to ban ALL guns"

Here ya go.

Every gun with more than a 7 round capacity. Which is practically every gun other than revolvers and some 1911s.

In a side story, the "president", tomorrow, is holding a press conference regarding his upcoming ban, with children from Sandy Hook by his side. Going for maximum irrational emotional appeal, much like Hitler and Mao, and other murderers.

In another side story, thankfully, thousand of police chiefs nationwide have publicly said they will defy enforcement of any law they deem unconstitutional, in regards to guns and gun rights.

[LemonCrush]

They also said, effective immediately, residents have 1 year to get rid of their mags

[Tony-DarkGrave]

oh I know I have family in NY my uncle just made the remington team! but to own a pistol or even carry you have to see a psych then you have to fill out paper work then submit it, get it then you have to go to a judge place your case why you want it to be approved, then if the permit holder passes away (my uncle for example) my aunt has 30 days to get a permit or else the
state confiscates the guns and the approval process take 60-90 days!

its set up to fail and fuck over legal gun owners in New York. and I can guarantee to you this will be took to the supreme court by the gun lobby (good for them).

[Warforger]

At 1/15/13 11:23 PM, LemonCrush wrote: To those who said "it couldn't happen" or "they aren't trying to ban ALL guns"

Here ya go.

Every gun with more than a 7 round capacity. Which is practically every gun other than revolvers and some 1911s.

Private industry would probably then just sell guns that have 7 round capacity or less.

In a side story, the "president", tomorrow, is holding a press conference regarding his upcoming ban, with children from Sandy Hook by his side. Going for maximum irrational emotional appeal, much like Hitler and Mao, and other murderers.

Wow you clearly don't see the difference between Mao and Obama? Not that I care I mean you've already discredited yourself so many times on here.

In another side story, thankfully, thousand of police chiefs nationwide have publicly said they will defy enforcement of any law they deem unconstitutional, in regards to guns and gun rights.

That's retarded. The only people who should be doing that is the Supreme Court, if anyone else does that the government falls apart like it did when the states tried to do it for Slavery.

[LemonCrush]

At 1/16/13 12:06 AM, Warforger wrote: Private industry would probably then just sell guns that have 7 round capacity or less.

Maybe. Then again, what a company makes, and what people can buy, should not be dictated by the government.

Wow you clearly don't see the difference between Mao and Obama? Not that I care I mean you've already discredited yourself so many times on here.

If it walks like a dog, and sounds like a dog...

On the other hand, comparing Mao to Obama may be little to high of praise for him. Obama's incompetence is closer to Kim Jong-Il

That's retarded. The only people who should be doing that is the Supreme Court

Says who?

[leanlifter1]

At 1/16/13 12:09 AM, LemonCrush wrote:

Private industry would probably then just sell guns that have 7 round capacity or less.

Who cares LOL.

Maybe. Then again, what a company makes, and what people can buy, should not be dictated by the government.

If it's about legitimate and justified public safety then yes there I say there should be Government mediation in such matters as long as the government maintain balanced and just.

[Warforger]

At 1/16/13 12:09 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Maybe. Then again, what a company makes, and what people can buy, should not be dictated by the government.

It should if it's designed to kill people.

Says who?

The Constitution.......

[LemonCrush]

At 1/16/13 12:19 AM, Warforger wrote: It should if it's designed to kill people.

Oh...but military drones and bombs are a-ok, right?

BTW, guns aren't designed to kill people

The Constitution.......

Where?

It's funny, because there's a big part in there saying that the government shall not infringe or impose on it's people.

Why cite the Constitution if you don't believe in it? You can't talk about the Constitution as law, and at the same time support a gun ban

[Kel-chan]

the whole law and circus is retarded

3d printers are becoming availible so just build your own shite

http://www.gizmag.com/first-3d-printed-firearm/23473/

good luck trying to stop that since its already illegal to build a gun if you dont have a license

more laws= more derp

[CaveStoryGrounds]

At 1/16/13 01:06 AM, LemonCrush wrote: BTW, guns aren't designed to kill people

Clearly they were made for gardening and writing! /sarcasm

It's funny, because there's a big part in there saying that the government shall not infringe or impose on it's people.

What part of the constitution was infringed? Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that you can own a handgun in your household, that's all....and that wasn't infringed.

[TheMason]

At 1/16/13 12:06 AM, Warforger wrote: Private industry would probably then just sell guns that have 7 round capacity or less.

The question here is of necessity. The reality is, high capacity mags do not present the threat that the media hype makes them out to be. As I've said before; it is the bullet that kills not barrel shrouds, bayonet lugs, 'grenade launchers', pistol grips, etc. Not even rate of fire adds that much lethality...it encourages spray and pray which in turns means only three shots are close to being on target. The rest end up in the ceiling.

Also, high-cap mags suffer serious problems of feed. Look at Holmes...he used a 100rd drum mag, which is notoriously unreliable for jamming. That's what happened at Aurora, his AR-15 drum mag failed so he switched to his shotgun and pistols.

Unfortunately, this means he switched to more deadly weapons.

'

In another side story, thankfully, thousand of police chiefs nationwide have publicly said they will defy enforcement of any law they deem unconstitutional, in regards to guns and gun rights.

That's retarded. The only people who should be doing that is the Supreme Court, if anyone else does that the government falls apart like it did when the states tried to do it for Slavery.

Not retarded at all...as immigration has proved that federal law cannot be enforced at the local level. Federal authorities cannot keep up with illegal immigrants arrested by local law enforcement so many cities have no choice but to let them go. The same with any bans on assault weapons and mags.

While the government can prohibit the sale of new guns and mags...they will not be able to stem the trade of existing mags and guns.

It's a fool's errand, and one that's likely to get Sherrif's deputies killed. I know many local deputies...none of them want to take guns from law-abiding citizens because they feel that they may get the guns from one or two homes but the third home will shoot them as they knock on the door.

Not only that...they don't agree with the law fundamentally.

[TheMason]

At 1/16/13 12:19 AM, Warforger wrote:

At 1/16/13 12:09 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Maybe. Then again, what a company makes, and what people can buy, should not be dictated by the government.

It should if it's designed to kill people.

Well then by your own argument the government should NOT ban 'assault weapons' that are military in style. Afterall, they are the only guns designed NOT to kill!

The self-defense handguns, shotguns, and hunting rifles are the firearms specifically designed to kill.

Military firearms smaller than a .50 call or a sniper rifle (which are simply hunting rifles re-purposed) are designed not to make death inevitable.

Says who?

The Constitution.......

Yes...the Constitution prohibits the government from infringing on the right of individuals to own firearms. AWBs and mag bans are an unnecessary infringement.

[leanlifter1]

At 1/16/13 10:48 AM, TheMason wrote:

Yes...the Constitution prohibits the government from infringing on the right of individuals to own firearms. AWBs and mag bans are an unnecessary infringement.

Clearly restricted magazines are not an infringement on owning guns. Americans have shown irresponsible with gun ownership and have an ultra high gun related crime rate with means they gave up the responsibility, right and privilege to own guns. Once again the shit apples fucked it all up for the few that were legitimate gun owners whom played by the rules.

[LemonCrush]

At 1/16/13 06:41 AM, Kellz5460 wrote: the whole law and circus is retarded

3d printers are becoming availible so just build your own shite

http://www.gizmag.com/first-3d-printed-firearm/23473/

good luck trying to stop that since its already illegal to build a gun if you dont have a license

more laws= more derp

It is not illegal to build your own gun. You can build as many as you want as long as they do not leave your possession

[LemonCrush]

At 1/16/13 08:09 AM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote: Clearly they were made for gardening and writing! /sarcasm

Depends on the gun and how it's used. Private gun owners don't really use their guns for anytihng more than shooting targets or hunting.

What part of the constitution was infringed? Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that you can own a handgun in your household, that's all....and that wasn't infringed.

The part about banning certain guns. The Bill of Rights says the government cannot take away your right to own a gun. It does not specify that only certain guns are legal

But hey, who am I kidding, Obama doesn't give a fuck about the constitution.

[Camarohusky]

At 1/16/13 10:48 AM, TheMason wrote: Yes...the Constitution prohibits the government from infringing on the right of individuals to own firearms. AWBs and mag bans are an unnecessary infringement.

Explain how.

[LemonCrush]

At 1/16/13 10:42 AM, TheMason wrote: Not only that...they don't agree with the law fundamentally.

I agree with everything you said.

The problem is, for some reason, we're banning certain guns, instead of taking a look at laws that affect who can obtain them, which is the actual problem.

[Camarohusky]

At 1/16/13 01:07 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Depends on the gun and how it's used.

How something is used is highly irrelevant to what it is designed for. A rat tail comb can be used for a great stabbing knife, but it sure as hell wasn't designed for that.

Guns, by their very nature, were designed to mame flesh and if shot correctly, or with a heap of luck, to kill.

But hey, who am I kidding, Obama doesn't give a fuck about the constitution.

Back it up.

[TheMason]

At 1/16/13 01:09 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 1/16/13 10:48 AM, TheMason wrote: Yes...the Constitution prohibits the government from infringing on the right of individuals to own firearms. AWBs and mag bans are an unnecessary infringement.

Explain how.

1) Assault rifles are simply not used in crime. Over and over again, crime stats bear out that assault rifles are used in less than 5% of crime, probably more like 1-2% of crimes.

2) Obama claimed, a claim bandied about by many gun control activists, that assault rifles like ARs fire rounds designed for "maximum destruction". This is simply not true, since the 1800s military ammo has been purposely made to have the lowest chance of causing death than any other ammo type aside from maybe wadcutters. To quote the Hague Convention; military smallarms ammo may not "make death inevitable".

3) Rate of fire does not make a gun more deadly; in fact the faster one fires the less probable people will get hurt.

4) High-cap mags increase the chances that a gun will misfire. Obama made the claim that a high cap magazine allowed James Holmes in Colorado to spray so many bullets that he was able to hit more people than he could have with a smaller capacity magazine. He ignores the fact that Holme's 100rd drum mag failed causing him to switch from his AR to his shotgun and then to his handgun. Furthermore, with lower cap mags, a shooter can still change quickly and with speed loaders a person can re-load revolvers almost as fast as person swapping mags.

In the end, all Obama's gun control is going to do is divert time, money, resources, and manpower from programs that will actually address the causes of firearm crime. He made the assertion that the causes of gun crime are unknown and that we lack any kind of scientific knowledge about these causes. The problem is: such a body of scientific literature exists...but it doesn't support the agenda of part of his party's base.

Obama talks about saving one life...all he's going to do is cost lives.

[TheMason]

At 1/16/13 10:55 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: Clearly restricted magazines are not an infringement on owning guns. Americans have shown irresponsible with gun ownership and have an ultra high gun related crime rate with means they gave up the responsibility, right and privilege to own guns. Once again the shit apples fucked it all up for the few that were legitimate gun owners whom played by the rules.

Actually, there is no data to back this up.

* Crime rates are going down...and have been percipitously since 1992 when many states started liberalizing gun laws to the point that people can now carry guns on their person outside of their homes.

* Our 'ultra high gun related crime rate' is a myth. Once you look at our gun crime rates they are about 0.86 standard deviations away from the international mean for developed countries. For anyone who has not had statistical analysis for the social sciences...this means that our gun crime rate is not significantly higher than what you would expect for an industrialized society.

* Guns have been consistently shown not to have a causal relationship with crime.

* Gun accidents have gone down 95% since 1904 when the government started keeping stats.

* Our suicide rate is flat, which leads most quantitative psychologists to believe that guns do not contribute to our suicide rate even though suicides with firearms equal or outnumber firearm homicides.

* Likewise, mass killings are done by people with mental illness who accomplish their terrible ends through meticulous planning. Just as suicidal individuals will find other ways to kill themselves (ie: substitution effect)...so will mass killers. Explosives and some chemicals are easily obtained and/or created so if some sick mind wants to committ mass murder they will find away.

* The vast, vast, vast majority of gun owners are responsible. It is not the insignificant few that you insinuate.

The answer is not in gun control. Instead it is public health; mental illness and even environmental toxins like residual lead.

[morefngdbs]

At 1/16/13 01:07 PM, LemonCrush wrote: But hey, who am I kidding, Obama doesn't give a fuck about the constitution.

;;;
I've been saying that for awhile & it had nothign to do with gun laws.

All you need to do is go look at what he got elected on as a platform for his first term ...& what he actually did compared to what he said he'd do.

Then look at anything to do with Banking & your economy since he's been President ...
I said you were goin gto be royally fucked & I along with many others were 100 % right on the 'money'

sorry to say it but hindsights 20/20 & since day one people have been calling this spade exactly what it is !

[LemonCrush]

Food for thought

[LemonCrush]

At 1/16/13 02:08 PM, TheMason wrote: Everything Mason said

Plus fucking 1

[Camarohusky]

At 1/16/13 01:51 PM, TheMason wrote: 1) Assault rifles are simply not used in crime. Over and over again, crime stats bear out that assault rifles are used in less than 5% of crime, probably more like 1-2% of crimes.

How does this bear on whether or not AWBs are an unessecary infringement?

2) Obama claimed, a claim bandied about by many gun control activists, that assault rifles like ARs fire rounds designed for "maximum destruction". This is simply not true, since the 1800s military ammo has been purposely made to have the lowest chance of causing death than any other ammo type aside from maybe wadcutters. To quote the Hague Convention; military smallarms ammo may not "make death inevitable".

But a great deal of military ammunition is meant to tumble after hitting a soft target thus creating large and deep wound cavity. Sounds more than harmful enough. Other military ammunition is meant to shatter into shrapnel upon impact with a soft target. Sounds pretty harmful. SO which is worse: mushrooming with shallower depth; tumbling with extreme deoth; or shrapnel? The only real difference in lethality or capacity to harm in these is the distance with which either happens from the barrel to the target.

Either way, saying assault weapons are not meant to harm is nothing less than specious. Guns are designed solely to harm flesh. You may be right that in close situations the most crime takes place assault weapons may end up causing less harm, but to imply that any gun is truly safe is just plain false. Guns are meant to be lethal.

3) Rate of fire does not make a gun more deadly; in fact the faster one fires the less probable people will get hurt.

Depends on use and intent, but in the vast majority of case this is correct. Still not sure how this makes AWBs an uneccesary infringement.

4) High-cap mags increase the chances that a gun will misfire. Obama made the claim that a high cap magazine allowed James Holmes in Colorado to spray so many bullets that he was able to hit more people than he could have with a smaller capacity magazine. He ignores the fact that Holme's 100rd drum mag failed causing him to switch from his AR to his shotgun and then to his handgun. Furthermore, with lower cap mags, a shooter can still change quickly and with speed loaders a person can re-load revolvers almost as fast as person swapping mags.

All you have done here is shown that Assault weapons don't make that good of crime weapons. Come back and say why that fact has anything to do with an AWB being an unessecary infrigement.

Don't focus on the crime aspect, focus on the infringement aspect.

[adrshepard]

At 1/16/13 03:47 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Either way, saying assault weapons are not meant to harm is nothing less than specious. Guns are designed solely to harm flesh. You may be right that in close situations the most crime takes place assault weapons may end up causing less harm, but to imply that any gun is truly safe is just plain false. Guns are meant to be lethal.

The bigger problem with his point is that assault rifles fire more powerful rounds which travel at higher speeds. A .223 round is going to cause much more damage than a 9mm or .45 bullet, and there's arguably no practical reason why anyone would need that large a round for self-defense purposes.

All you have done here is shown that Assault weapons don't make that good of crime weapons. Come back and say why that fact has anything to do with an AWB being an unessecary infrigement.

You're looking at it from the wrong direction, trying to justify the right to have guns from a position of need. The 2nd Amendment establishes the right to bear arms in general, not just certain types. The actual need for the guns is irrelevant. Therefore, someone is entitled to have nearly any gun so long as there isn't a good reason to deprive him of it. There are good reasons for restricting fully automatic weapons or heavy machine guns, obviously, but Mason's point is that there aren't any similar arguments that apply to the AR-15 or similar semi-automatic rifles because they simply aren't used in that many crimes and don't have a comparatively larger potential for massacres than other weapons.

[Kel-chan]

At 1/16/13 04:16 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 1/16/13 03:47 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

The bigger problem with his point is that assault rifles fire more powerful rounds which travel at higher speeds. A .223 round is going to cause much more damage than a 9mm or .45 bullet, and there's arguably no practical reason why anyone would need that large a round for self-defense purposes.

Really that's not true. Research ballistics first. You can argue a .22 round does more damage because it can bounce around the body and not exit. In any case as a self defense round its perfect because a self defense round is any round necessary to stop the threat. Anybody can look up police stories of what can happen to people that are on drugs and how they can seemingly shrug off being shot multiple times. Its why police officers have to shoot, they are taught to empty the magazine until the threat is neutralized. Thats why you hear about police shooting some suspect 20 30 times.

You're looking at it from the wrong direction, trying to justify the right to have guns from a position of need. The 2nd Amendment establishes the right to bear arms in general, not just certain types. The actual need for the guns is irrelevant. Therefore, someone is entitled to have nearly any gun so long as there isn't a good reason to deprive him of it. There are good reasons for restricting fully automatic weapons or heavy machine guns, obviously, but Mason's point is that there aren't any similar arguments that apply to the AR-15 or similar semi-automatic rifles because they simply aren't used in that many crimes and don't have a comparatively larger potential for massacres than other weapons.

The whole problem is the idea of justification. You don't need to justify anything by need unless you want to legislate the ownership of property by need. If a person wants to own something, even a fully automatic weapon, theres legal channels to do that. By restricting ownership you unwittingly create something of a black market. Basically the only reason this is even a topic is because legislators are attempting to impose collective punishment upon the innocent because someone else committed a series of serious felonies.

As for the "Assault Weapons Ban" perhaps you can tell me why the police need these weapons if they are designed solely to "kill as many people as possible" as Obama asserts?

The truth is a different matter -- these weapons are very effective weapons of defense and any law enforcement official will tell you straight up that many felony offenders are jacked up on drugs and unlike in the movies one shot does not stop them -- sometimes ten shots do not stop them.

The people have every right to own and bear the same defensive weaponry that our police officers have and use on a daily basis. the very definition of weapons that are protected under The Second Amendment are those suitable for militia use."

and i quote some stuff from karl denniger because he said it more concise than i can

[leanlifter1]

At 1/16/13 03:35 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 1/16/13 02:08 PM, TheMason wrote: Everything Mason said

Plus fucking 1

Someone got the but hurt again LOL ?

[Ceratisa]

At 1/16/13 04:53 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 1/16/13 03:35 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 1/16/13 02:08 PM, TheMason wrote: Everything Mason said

Plus fucking 1

Someone got the but hurt again LOL ?

Your comment doesn't really make sense..

[JackPhantasm]

At 1/16/13 01:07 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 1/16/13 08:09 AM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote: Clearly they were made for gardening and writing! /sarcasm

Depends on the gun and how it's used. Private gun owners don't really use their guns for anytihng more than shooting targets or hunting.

Then why exactly do you need them so badly.

[leanlifter1]

At 1/16/13 05:03 PM, JackPhantasm wrote:

At 1/16/13 01:07 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 1/16/13 08:09 AM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote: Clearly they were made for gardening and writing! /sarcasm

Depends on the gun and how it's used. Private gun owners don't really use their guns for anytihng more than shooting targets or hunting.

Then why exactly do you need them so badly.

They don't. It's an ego pump is all. If you take away there guns it's like taking apart of their ego like taking candy from a baby.