New NY gun law

[Stifler]

Im all down for stricter enforcing and what not. Im definetly all up for banning full auto weapons because no one should need a full auto weapon.

well congrats full auto has been banned! um for like a century.... :ybrick:

 

[theizzardking]

You're making a big leap to say that because I recognize like the Supreme Court's most Constitutionally conservative justice that there is some plausible limitation to what "arms" are protected, that I somehow don't value freedom or the spirt and intent of the bill of rights the way you do. It seems ill founded.

adsurdum is reducing the argument into absurdity, what i find absurd is reducing the argument to rocket launchers and nukes , we are not talking about that here, we are talking about arms with a reasonable amount of force to allow the people to defend their homes from looters or the people as a whole, if they so wish, to have a possibility of a revolution if it needs be, and i am not saying we are anywhere near that point yet, but again, back to the basics of why it's there in the first place at number 2, and how it is essential to protect liberty, liberty #1 guns #2 , it's mentioned again and again and again, and here we are about you potentially supporting laws that take away what i feel is my inherent right.....and you ask why i don't think you value liberty....

i also understand the constitution just fine

Perhaps the best way to understand the role of the Constitution is in the context of a contractual relationship between the government and the governed. This is validated by the Preamble to the Constitution which states, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

We sometimes need to be reminded that the Constitution was not just an itemization of rights for citizens and limited governmental powers for that earliest generation of Americans, but that it was to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” It was designed and intended to be no less of a contract between the people (collectively and individually) and our government today than any other contractual relationship. Strictly defined, and strictly applied, with assurances made to the contractual parties and recourse for violation of those terms.

i digress.....

 

[H2O_Doc]

adsurdum is reducing the argument into absurdity, what i find absurd is reducing the argument to rocket launchers and nukes , we are not talking about that here, we are talking about arms with a reasonable amount of force to allow the people to defend their homes from looters or the people as a whole, if they so wish, to have a possibility of a revolution if it needs be, and i am not saying we are anywhere near that point yet, but again, back to the basics of why it's there in the first place at number 2, and how it is essential to protect liberty, liberty #1 guns #2 , it's mentioned again and again and again, and you ask why i don't think you value liberty....

i also understand the constitution just fine

i digress.....

We finally recognize we agree on a number of things here, and I don't mean that disingenuously. I agree largely with what you have argued above and my point about nuclear arms wasn't that it was a valid argument, it is that either side can become entrenched in absurdity and this is where open ended absurdity lands you. It is the counter to "it just says arms and that can be anything I want to own." People have and will probably continue to argue that.

Autonomy, self preservation, self defense are all very persuasive arguments. But, I wouldn't forget the notion of what I finished with in the post that seems to have drawn your ire a bit. What I was trying to get at was that we shouldn't necessarily be compelled to justify gun ownership; that we treat the curtailment of any right as something we should only with great reluctance when absolutely necessary. Don't fall into the trap of justifying gun ownership until someone believes they have a compelling argument to curtail your right.

I understand the sensitivity about the 2nd in the current environment, and I've pointed in previous posts to the issue of the rural urban disconnect. That I think is one of the communications barriers that, if over come, could help re-frame the discussion. Urban residents just don't understand the role of firearms in the culture and heritage of urban Americans. I hope this is an argument for understanding and not a justification.

 

[Kurtis]

well congrats full auto has been banned! um for like a century.... :ybrick:

Not federally. Only by your state. Meaning that if your state is a class 3 state you can own a fully automatic weapon. That weapon is just HIGHLY taxed and EXTREMELY expensive. Depending on the state it can take 6-12 months to get the permit for it.

 

[4runnerBrett]

well congrats full auto has been banned! um for like a century.... :ybrick:

Considering I know there is regular civillians that have full auto weapons but thanks for spreading your knowledge. Do you also think silencers are banned too?

 

[machinegear]

A fool puts all his faith in the man that guarantees safety believing they may relieve themselves of the burden to protect themselves, their family, and their community. Ignorant to what they have done, the fool is condemned to the will of the guarantor and the evil in their heart.

I personally acknowledge sin, carry a .45 and trust in Him.

 

[theizzardking]

It is the counter to "it just says arms and that can be anything I want to own." People have and will probably continue to argue that.

where in the hell is anyone trying to bring rocket launchers and fully automatics back to the main stream market? again your the only one being absurd.....

I wouldn't forget the notion of what I finished with in the post that seems to have drawn your ire a bit. .

i'm irked at your hypocrisy or if you want to feel good about yourself, duality .... you say you support the right to bare arms, but you don't think assault weapons are needed, you say you understand the nuances of firearms enough (i don't know jack really either) to make that call, you say you understand how liberty and the right to bare arms are closely tied., you say you agree with every argument "FOR" owning so called assault weapons.. but don't think the public should have them...well sir i ask you then, where is the line in the sand? At what point are we fighting rocket launchers with rocks or arrows because of your fear for safety?

this is why i am irked, is someone trying to take my rights,like i said, you can think,feel,choose to do what you want to do as long as your not limiting me or harming me and i will do the same for every living creature on earth,but until this general understanding is had ,we needs arms and sufficient arms for disasters,looting,civil unrest, and potential revolution in a hundred years time if we need it.

also don't worry there's no need to justify any of it to you at all, it is in the best interest of understanding...I'm still trying to understand what you think should happen, you just seem to want to talk in circles....

Urban residents just don't understand the role of firearms in the culture and heritage of urban Americans.

well simple then, yo city folk keep yer laws in dat der city.....

 

[blue dog]

WOW ! lots of emotion in here.
I think all with the exception of convicted felons and mentally unstable people should be armed, in my mind, this will make for a more peaceful society, as people will be less likely to start crap or commit a crime against others.
Now, as far as the full auto situation, I am against the general population owning full auto weapons, end of story.

 

[mikebontoft]

it's a good thing they're very restrictive to obtain class 3.

I recommend silencers for home defense anyway. Definitely saves the ears and prevents 20 armed officers from showing up.

 

[theizzardking]

me and doc...

:yo:

seriously no harsh feelings....just passionate...

 

[H2O_Doc]

where in the hell is anyone trying to bring rocket launchers and fully automatics back to the main stream market? again your the only one being absurd.....






i'm irked at your hypocrisy or if you want to feel good about yourself, duality .... you say you support the right to bare arms, but you don't think assault weapons are needed, you say you understand the nuances of firearms enough (i don't know jack really either) to make that call, you say you understand how liberty and the right to bare arms are closely tied., you say you agree with every argument "FOR" owning so called assault weapons.. but don't think the public should have them...well sir i ask you then, where is the line in the sand? At what point are we fighting rocket launchers with rocks or arrows because of your fear for safety?

this is why i am irked, is someone trying to take my rights,like i said, you can think,feel,choose to do what you want to do as long as your not limiting me or harming me and i will do the same for every living creature on earth,but until this general understanding is had ,we needs arms and sufficient arms for disasters,looting,civil unrest, and potential revolution in a hundred years time if we need it.

also don't worry there's no need to justify any of it to you at all, it is in the best interest of understanding...I'm still trying to understand what you think should happen, you just seem to want to talk in circles....

Argh. This really is getting silly. I never said I thought assault weapons were not needed and should not be owned by the public - never ever. Please, if I am mistaken, show me where I did this (I mean this sincerely). Perhaps it is an unfair inference drawn for your experience with others? I don't think the argument should have to be based on need. Where on earth did you get that? Because I cite Scalia's mentioning that the ownership of certain weapons can be regulated without being inherently violative of the Constitution (in the Heller decision) doesn't mean it is my argument; it is merely one particular arm that the Court suggests legislatures (at some level) of can restrict. This means that there are limitations to the kinds of weapons that can be owned which was the point I was making: the understanding by the Court as it currently exists. And before you say Mason, Jefferson, or anyone else alive at the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights would disagree, you need to consider the fairly detailed review that Scalia writes in his Heller opinion.

Where is the line in the sand? I said there hasn't been a bright line established, just that there exists some line in the minds of the Court that could be drawn by legislative bodies that wasn't automatically unconstitutional. This point (mind you not made by you to be fair) was greeted by the insistence that any law restricting gun ownership was unconstitutional.

I have said multiple times that I do not support the AWB; I formerly owned an AR15, and to say otherwise would actually make me a hypocrite. I don't think anything you point to can reasonably be construed as being hypocritical.

You have misunderstood to a great extent the points I have tried to make. I'm just not sure how you took away what you did; perhaps my fault, but that has yet to be demonstrated I think.

 

[H2O_Doc]

me and doc...

:yo:

seriously no harsh feelings....just passionate...

Agreed. I certainly respect you enough to engage on the matter...and all this without calling you a Jeep owner (that would be low).

 

[blue dog]

I do not want to take anyones rights to own what they want if they are responsible law abiding contributing members of society, The issue lies in that automatic weapons end up in the hands of people with not such good intentions. Not all, but just enough. The crimes that are committed with these weapons are no more then cold blooded murder, Yes this happens daily,and not in your lily white middle class neighborhood, and you do not hear about but a small fraction of these violent crimes. Intention towards law enforcement is of big concern, and while you work your graphic design job or fix, cars or what ever it is you do, then go home and ***** that you can not own a full auto AK or Mp5 with your boys in the garage while downing a few beers, i ask you, Why do you need a full auto assault weapon ? Make me understand.
Do your research on border patrol violent crime, take up a job where your life is on the line everyday, Make a difference on society as a whole by making it a safer place, Until you can convince me otherwise, You do not need a full auto assault weapon as a average citizen. Semi auto handgun, i have no issue with.
Walk in my shoes for one day, your view would be different.
This is my opinion, and my opinion only, Not who i work for, not some anti gun lobby, and did not come from my dog.
Carry on.

 

[Kurtis]

I do not want to take anyones rights to own what they want if they are responsible law abiding contributing members of society, The issue lies in that automatic weapons end up in the hands of people with not such good intentions. Not all, but just enough. The crimes that are committed with these weapons are no more then cold blooded murder, Yes this happens daily,and not in your lily white middle class neighborhood, and you do not hear about but a small fraction of these violent crimes. Intention towards law enforcement is of big concern, and while you work your graphic design job or fix, cars or what ever it is you do, then go home and ***** that you can not own a full auto AK or Mp5 with your boys in the garage while downing a few beers, i ask you, Why do you need a full auto assault weapon ? Make me understand.
Do your research on border patrol violent crime, take up a job where your life is on the line everyday, Make a difference on society as a whole by making it a safer place, Until you can convince me otherwise, You do not need a full auto assault weapon as a average citizen. Semi auto handgun, i have no issue with.
Walk in my shoes for one day, your view would be different.
This is my opinion, and my opinion only, Not who i work for, not some anti gun lobby, and did not come from my dog.
Carry on.

Walk in your shoes? What shoes would those be?

I really don't think the people you are talking about would be lining up to turn in their fully automatics if they were banned. Do you?

Not saying I have a need for full auto but outlawing them would make no difference.

I know everyone sees the cartoons and jokes but this one really caught my attention today.

 

[blue dog]

Walk in your shoes? What shoes would those be?

I really don't think the people you are talking about would be lining up to turn in their fully automatics if they were banned. Do you?

Not saying I have a need for full auto but outlawing them would make no difference.

I know everyone sees the cartoons and jokes but this one really caught my attention today.

It is futile to argue this, as it will accomplish absolutely nothing. Fanatics are the worst, there is no proving them wrong.

 

[Kurtis]

It is futile to argue this, as it will accomplish absolutely nothing. Fanatics are the worst, there is no proving them wrong.

So, if we had banned assault weapons in Connecticut the Sandy Hook shooting never would of happened? huh...

 

[blue dog]

So, if we had banned assault weapons in Connecticut the Sandy Hook shooting never would of happened? huh...

Yeah, that is exactly what i said. Don't be a d#$%^&s, it is not becoming of you. Yet typical.
As of right now, you are one of those people i would classify a SHOULD NOT OWN a weapon. All it takes is one outburst of stupidity on your part to be lumped in the category. People like you are more detrimental to the pro gun lobby, and you do not even understand why.
Have you ever seen in person someone who was shot in the face ?
Have you ever been next to someone that was gut shot so bad that the the outcome was nothing more then death, as you watched ? Have you been in an active war ? Have you ever been shot at ? Or shot at someone due to being in fear of your life ? Until you have been in a life or death situation, i could care less what kinda super pro gun, my rights are being violated BS you put forth. But to try to spin my words to further your absurd agenda, just hurts your cause even more. I guarantee that i have far more firearm experience and training then you do or probably most here, and i say it again, the general public does not need FULL AUTO assault weapons.

 

[got556]

Yeah, that is exactly what i said. Don't be a d#$%^&s, it is not becoming of you. Yet typical.
As of right now, you are one of those people i would classify a SHOULD NOT OWN a weapon. All it takes is one outburst of stupidity on your part to be lumped in the category. People like you are more detrimental to the pro gun lobby, and you do not even understand why.
Have you ever seen in person someone who was shot in the face ?
Have you ever been next to someone that was gut shot so bad that the the outcome was nothing more then death, as you watched ? Have you been in an active war ? Have you ever been shot at ? Or shot at someone due to being in fear of your life ? Until you have been in a life or death situation, i could care less what kinda super pro gun, my rights are being violated BS you put forth. But to try to spin my words to further your absurd agenda, just hurts your cause even more. I guarantee that i have far more firearm experience and training then you do or probably most here, and i say it again, the general public does not need FULL AUTO assault weapons.

While I understand what you're saying, what qualifies you as someone who says the general public does not need full auto? With that said I'm fine with leaving full auto on the NFA even though the NFA was racist in it's origins and most NFA items have never been used in a crime.

Honestly the happy switch is fun and all until you realize how much money you just wasted on securing/getting a happy switch toy and then what it costs to feed it. And 9 times out of 10 going full auto or even in burst is counterproductive to whatever target is at the end of your barrel. How many veteran or active can honestly say they've used anything but semi other than to weapon check/range time?

Better money is spent on things like nods and bug out gear. You own the night you have a much greater change of success and survival. Until you own nods you just will never understand how being in a full cover of trees and creeping up on someone w/in 5 feet and they could be staring right at you and not even know you're there.

If I were you all I'd slow down the panic buying, unless you were not already prepared (you knew these times would come), and invest in a decent Gen 2+ or Gen 3 monocular and proper head gear/mounts. What good is 5000 rounds of ammo you can't carry or 10 AR's when you and maybe your family will be moving with if you can't see shit at night w/out giving away your every position. Invest in some good coms also.

Not to sound all survivalist but what are you gonna do if a major natural disaster comes or worse, the things that have been alluded to in this and other threads here and across the net. Not being prepared is no excuse when your life is on the line and the writing has been on the wall for the last 10 to 20 years....

 

[mikebontoft]

This thread has run its course.

For the last time we don't NEED them. I agree.

Sandy Hook would have happened either way. If assault weapons were already banned, we would be discussing handgun bans. The kid would have gone with the next weapon available. A long gun is hardly any better than a shotgun or pistol for that type of close-range situation. I will not debate this or reduce to arguing as many of you have done.

 

[KCcarguy]

I think gun control is a state's rights issue. If they want to do this to themselves, fine. What works for New Yorkers might not work for Oklahomans, Texans, etc. I'll be interested to see how the crime statistics change....if at all.