Slashdot Mirror
New York Passes Landmark Gun Law
New submitter mallyn points out that the state of New York has become the first state to pass a new gun control law since the school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary last month.
"Called the New York Safe Act, the law includes a tougher assault weapons ban that broadens the definition of what constitutes an assault weapon, and limits the capacity of magazines to seven bullets, down from 10. The law also requires background checks of ammunition and gun buyers, even in private sales, imposes tougher penalties for illegal gun use, a one-state check on all firearms purchases, and programs to cut gun violence in high-crime neighborhoods. ... New York's law also aims to keep guns out of the hands of those will mental illness. The law gives judges the power to require those who pose a threat to themselves or others get outpatient care. The law also requires that when a mental health professional determines a gun owner is likely to do harm, the risk must be reported and the gun removed by law enforcement."
Meanwhile, the Obama Administration is expected to propose a new federal assault weapons ban later today.
Considering how easy it would be to set off some of those cheap Blue-Rhino propane tanks and get a similar death-toll, I hop that NYC is going to have gas control next on the agenda.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
Sensible changes to how one legally acquires a gun and increased penalties for violence. Nobody's TERKIN YER GERNS. See how easy that is?
yes, stiffen up laws banning guns in schools.... that will stop them, brilliant!
No criminal will dare violate the law now.
It won't matter a bit...
Until the underlying problem gets solved this is just political theater. (And hidden political theater since this was passed so quickly behind, for all intents and purposes, closed doors with no public discussion by the NY legislature.)
And why is this on /. he asks?
Given the speed of beauracracy, I'm absolutely sure this is a well thought out piece of legislation, which balances freedom with security. Fortunately, mental health professionals are the appropriate people in our judicial system to deny personal liberties, and that stigmatizing gun owners will help bring together a society that is being split on ideological lines.
meet jerk
Thats a good starting point!
Will they be grandfathered in? I have a feeling gun shops will hoard "assault weapons" and higher cap clips before the law goes into effect
Since this is slashdot - let's talk about the new tech systems:
So will mental health professionals be required to do a check against gun owner databases? Will a mental illness database need to be created so that potential gun buyers can be screened at purchase time? How about house-holding - if someone in the same residence is a registered gun owner, will they be forced to surrender their weapons?
So, let me start this out by saying that I'm a damn sight from being a Republican, much less a gun nut. And yes, there are gun nuts - we all know the type.
Having said that, I love how NY (and for that matter, everywhere else) doesn't give a hoot in hell whether or not any actual evidence backs them up when laws like this get passed, much less track the results of what they have passed. It's a platitude, but true: criminals and other assholes could give a toss less whether or not they are breaking gun laws when they shoot someone. Regular folks are the ones who care about the law and mostly try to follow it, out of fear if nothing else.
And yes, the second amendment doesn't mean a turkey in every pot and a Bofors anti-aircraft gun in every garage, but god damn - every time the government tries to take away something that anyone used to have I need to ask myself, "Do I trust the government?", the answer to which is almost always NO. I'd rather have a hillbilly with a M-16 and the stars and bars hanging in a window living next to me than have The Man start confiscating guns "for our own good", that's for sure.
Now the other states should follow suit.
The law does contain a lot of really beneficial improvements that may well improve things, but the "one-feature" test for so-called "assault weapons" will apply to a rather large number of common sporting and competition guns, requires that they be registered within the year, and once registered these now-banned guns cannot be sold or transferred to another New Yorker -- they can only be transferred to a licensed gun dealer or to an out of state buyer -- even if the registered owner dies.
Not even legally-transferrable machine guns, what few there are, are so strictly regulated.
De-grandfathering pre-ban magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds is asinine (are people supposed to turn them in?), as is banning any newly-produced magazines with a capacity greater than 7 rounds. (You can keep your current 10-round magazines but you can't load more than 7 rounds into them.)
They could have kept such absurd provisions out of the law and people probably would think that it's a reasonable, if somewhat restrictive, law that may do some good stuff...but those extra provisions go way too far.
I know that all the NRA fans will come up with all kinds of suggestions for why making killing easy is supposed to make the world safer, but from a very safe country where guns, even in the hands of law enforcement, are an extremely rare sight, I say: Hurray for sanity and common sense!
It's far too easy for mentally unstable people to purchase guns and ammunition. Negligent gun-owners should also face harsher penalties when their weapons are used to commit crimes. I grew up with guns, and have no problem with responsible ownership. Unfortunately, there are far too many irresponsible gun owners in this country.
How is this news for nerds? Nerds seem to feel strongly one way or the other about gun control, but so does everyone else.
As long as we are here, is an 8 round revolver exempted as it does not have a magazine? It is almost like they knocked off the extra three rounds just to make manufacturers re-tool. Even "low-capacity" single stacks like 1911 handguns typically have 8 in a full size. This will probably streamline background checks since they have to do one for every ammo purchase, which seems like the only silver lining, but its a single-state check so not terribly useful.
refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
During the "lame duck" session of the IL 97th General Assembly, our Dear Leader Rahm and Governor Jello tried something similar, but even more far reaching banning all semi auto and pump firearms. We were lucky that that bill was so over the top even many non gun owners called to object. The gun groups were organized because of the "internets" and we filled the voice/email boxes of our reps and emptied their fax machines.
I'm sure "they" will try again, but now in the daylight instead of middle of the night back room deals.
Living in places like Illinois and New York we see first hand the difference of being ruled versus represented.
It's not over. Hopefully our 2nd amendment will protect us from unjust laws. This is whole push to disarm America is not really "safety for the children". It's about power of the elites. they don't like the slaves to be armed.
* Carthago Delenda Est *
Of the ~750 murders with firearms a year in NY, 5 were with rifles of any kind... So, banning "assault rifles" is nothing other than a feel good measure to make idiots feel like they accomplished something.
All of this is nothing more than a circle jerk. They don't care about preventing real violence. Like bureaucrats, they want to pretend they are solving the problem but are actually doing nothing.
This shows that everyone against the Walmart can easily have the store chain banned.
They sell everything needed for mass destruction, and guns aren't even needed!
Gasoline, Vaseline jelly, and Tupperware = napalm
Plastic jar, nails and screws, fertilizer, newspaper, and matches = shrapnel bomb
Bleach and ammonia = mustard gas
Any one of these (let alone all of them together) would bring as much destruction, pain, and misery as a gun.
With this, our government has shown it cares not about the actual cause of the destruction, only the device that caused it and the people/places that sell it.
Time to pressure them to ban the Walmart and arrest anyone who shops there!
... does that mean this legislation is a worthless waste of time?
I understand there are bears and all sorts of other dangerous animals in usa requiring people to have rifles. But I still think they can go further, I would say 5rd clips is fair on rifles, make anything that can be considered a rifle single shot only. I.e. hand reloaded, bolt action whatever. 6rds for a pistol is pleanty too. Anything more than that should be police issue, firearms officers etc. All guns must only be accessible by licenced fire-arms owners.
I fully believe they (the US governments) shouldn’t be asking how far they should go, but how far is far enough.
Considering how easy it would be to set off some of those cheap Blue-Rhino propane tanks and get a similar death-toll, I hop that NYC is going to have gas control next on the agenda.
But ... but there are regulations on gas, how you transport it, who can drive the truck that transports it, where you can park it, where you can store it, etc. What sort of ineffective troll are you?
Except you have to destroy or sell to an out of state buyer (NY official recommendation) and high capacity magazine you have already purchased. Which completely goes against several federal grandfathering laws. Honestly if you have high cap magazines and want to be legal then your best bet is to just sell them on the black market to some inner city gangs or just drop them off in a school playground.
So when it is determined that a gun owner needs to be relieved of their firearm by law enforcement (because they are no longer defined as able to own it) is the state going to re-imburse the owner the value of the gun? Would the funds come from some fund from gun sales tax? Are they temporarily taking it with the intention of returning it when able? Where will they be safely stored?
-Xen
Because if there's ever a time to enact new legislation that has the potential to send previously law-abiding people to prison while being summarily ignored by the criminal element, it's while people are enduring emotional turmoil brought on by a significant tragedy. Look how well the PATRIOT act worked!
I suspect this is a troll, but in case it isn't. The reason people are outraged at this, is the 7round restriction, not the new penalties, or background checks. No one makes 7 round magazines today, even for low capacity handguns. Various sports will have to change their rules, manufacturers will have to re-tool, and small business owners will go under as they are stuck with shelves of items they cannot legally sell, all so he can say he "did something". Bravo on the background checks, new penalties are redundant if we would sentence sanely to begin with.
refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
Of course you never wanna let a crysis go to waste.
I don't have a sig.
2^3 - 1 doesn't seem right. 2^3 is much better.
I do not understand how any of these reduced clip laws, or assault rifle bans, get passed when it is supposed to be legal to operate and join a militia and to have the ability to fight your own government if they turn tyrannical enough.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Banning guns, it's a bandaid act to make the politicians feel achieved. It's a false way of feeling like they did a job. In the end It disrespects the constitution, and the 50+ million legal gun owners who haven't murdered anyone.
and no, the founders most likely never foresaw machine guns and rocket launchers. But they learned from thousands of years of history that standing armies, soldiers that are bored with no wars, will turn on the citizens. This can be noted in the small towns with bored police... This can be seen across the world as we know it now. when the citizens cannot defend themselves, the government get's arrogant and diminishes the freedoms of the people. this is what our founders saw, and fought against, and it is what they know will always be the case. So they built into our constitution a way for the people to control government. Even they saw, 20 years later, the government was already too big for their liking but flew out of their hands.
One more state I can cross off the list of ever visiting, living in, or spending a dime of my money in (if at all possible). I do not support states that violate the Constitution. If I have to get to the northeast, I'll drive through Canada.
Actually, rampage killers typically create meticulous plans over time, they don't cool off, they build pressure.
refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
Gun/Arms control is fascism plain and simple. And the people who support gun control are nothing better than enablers of genocide.
Obama needs a bullet in his head just like Hitler.
Welcome to the list :)
I think the real problem with this new law is that it was passed in 20 minutes after it’s unveiling during an emergency midnight session. The debate of the bill occurred the next day when it went for committee rubber stamping. The entire debate was streamed live and featured such amazing ignorance and antipathy that it was staggering. We also have quotes from the session like, "I know this won't solve the crime problem in New York but we have to do something now. The real laws can come later,” and senators talking about how MLK died for our gun control. The law allows ownership of 10 round magazines but makes it illegal to load more than 7 rounds in them. It doesn't even contain exemptions for police officers on the 7 round limits. Whatever your stance on guns is, this display was incredibly shameful and disingenuous.
... does that mean this legislation is a worthless waste of time?
A failure in decline of homicide rates would be a clear indicator of global warming.
Yea, becuase unregulated guns are working out so well in the Middle East!
So what is the procedure for reporting an assassination threat on slashdot anyway?
"mental health professional determines a gun owner is likely to do harm"
So how long until everyone who wants to own a gun is considered likely to do harm? Note that lack of mental illness qualifier; Insane people are already not allowed guns, this allows some person to say you are mentally fine, but still cannot own a gun.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
...along with every state legislator who voted for this expanded gun ban.
just came here to make a few points. "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." from the deceleration of independence http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html and, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 2nd amendment. the WHOLE point was a) to be able to defend from {Europe,India,Africa,unknown} and b) so that when the government gets to broken we can use guns, in the hands of regular citizens to push the reset button. Tell me this, with all the restrictions like above, how are you supposed to go against an M1 Abrams tank, or an F-22? you know the best funded military in the world 7 times over. "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." It has been declared this attribution is "unsubstantiated and almost certainly bogus, even though it has been repeated thousands of times in various Internet postings. There is no record of the commander in chief of Japan’s wartime fleet ever saying it. However the sentiment holds true, and without something like the new Red Dawn movie to "Magically" take out all the infrastructure. I can understand the need for some semblance of gun control i guess. would not want children cruising the streets with them. but why should they be that much different that they you get cigarets or alcohol?
"New York's law also aims to keep guns out of the hands of those will mental illness."
At least they tended towards fewer typos.
(For the record: I make plenty, but I also don't get paid to write copy for international-level news stories).
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
-H. L. Mencken
more people die form just about everything esle other than guns. Are you for Blunt object control? death by vehicle control? how about cancer control?http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm
I am amazed that my legislature can pass this law in two days, but has trouble passing a budget every year.
Oh good, now criminals can't and won't get guns and certain mags...oh wait, no, that other group. Regular people.
Gotta wonder how many people are against a "War on Drugs" but are for a "War on Guns".
7 shot in a magazine is fine. Any hunter that wants more is just to lazy to change magazines. In a home invasion situation, if you need more than 7 shots to take someone down either: A) you are a terrible shot and more bullets would result in more property damage than safety or B) You are dealing with someone with superhuman capabilities, who is probably green and you just got him angry.
You won't like him when he's angry.
I just want to point out that the law as written will require:
Police Officers to have no magazines capable of containing no more than seven rounds (an unmodified magazine can hold ten)
Police Officers CAN NOT poses a gun on School Premises (S 265.01-A)
On a related note - who will pay for these changes (added background checks, more paperwork etc)?
http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S2230-2013
Psychiatrists confiscating guns. What's next, MURDER PILLS?
On the positive side, Smith & Wesson is probably foaming at the mouth from the upcoming onslaught of revolver purchases coming from New York.
I see these measures as being perfectly reasonable for a country needing arms to hunt or defend itself when it already has a standing army.
Beyond that, you're defending yourself or the American people from tyranny within the government. If you're doing that, you're technically committing treason so why would you care if you're breaking any other laws? It worked for the founding fathers.
and in an insane asylum
is still a job. if you want to lower crime in general, then take steps to improve the economy - which (in the past) has meant the government getting out of the way.
I'm not opposed to gun control - I just don't think it will make any difference (except make politicians feel like they "did" something about the problem)
with my libertarian leanings satisfied, I'll point out that the only nation-state I know of to successfully manage "gun control" was feudal Japan (Samurai who had spent a lifetime perfecting their skills wanted protection from poorly trained peasants with guns).
If you believe that a primary function of government is to protect citizens from each other - then maybe we should be discussing repeal of the second amendment. Simply make it illegal for everyone (except the "government") to own guns - then be prepared to incarcerate everyone you find with a gun.
if THAT works, we could make all drugs illegal to cut down on drug addiction ... (after all making something illegal NEVER has unintended consequences)
on the other hand the pointless reference of the day: this debate always reminds me of the "Treehouse of Horror" episode where Lisa wishes for world peace - "He's got a board with a nail in it!" and "They constructed a board with a nail in it, but they won't stop there. They'll construct bigger boards with bigger nails, and then they'll construct a board with a nail in it so large, it will destroy them all..."
It ain't what they call you. It's what you answer to. http://mylyceum.us/
If any government says they are passing a gun law for "public safety" then tell me why cigarettes are legal. Larger cause of deaths...
The law also requires that when a mental health professional determines a gun owner is likely to do harm, the risk must be reported and the gun removed by law enforcement.
Now they know not to report any of their feelings about guns or uses thereof to their doctors. Whew.
Heller VS DC all over again.
So called "mental health professionals" can't even agree on whether a person is suffering from depression yet they are supposed to determine if you are a threat to others and take your guns away.
Hitler shot himself. Using the phrase "just like Hitler" implies that he thinks Obama should commit suicide. While it may be argued that's in poor taste, it's not a threat.
"News for nerds" indeed. We don't come to Slashdot to read a day-late version of a story we've seen on many other general-interest news sites.
The M1 Garand is not the oldest 8+ round magazine weapon that is now banned. Here are some examples:
The 1860 Henry (colt) Rifle 1886 Lebel Mle1, 1888 Lee-Metford, 1889 Schmidt-Rubin, 1895 Lee Enfield, 1895 Mauser C/96 pistol, 1897 Winchester Shotgun, 1898 Steyr-Mannlicher pistol, 1898 Luger P08 pistol. These are all examples of rifles, shotguns, and pistols, which exceed 7-rounds in the magazine, AND WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE 20th CENTURY!
We are afraid of weapons from the 1800's now, in New York State. More accurately, we are afraid of the person standing next to us, whatever their weapon of choice. WE ARE AFRAID OF OUR FELLOW CITIZENS! That is what this new law is effectively stating.
p.s. All the weapons listed, except the Luger, have an internal fixed magazine. The magazine cannot be removed. I believe the state decided on a 7 round magazine, because all the cops would get pissed if they couldn't have an M1911 .45ACP.
IANAL but I am pretty sure he would need to make an actual threat or statement of intent. For example, he would have to say that he was going to put that bullet there, or that he is encouraging other specific people to put the bullet there, not that the bullet should be there.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Media and politicians are framing this in completely wrong way . Virtually everybody has accepted this misinformation and virtually everybody is barking at the wrong tree. I don't know if it is intentional or not - but this debate should NOT focus on guns, but on the Constitution and Bill of Rights instead. Right to keep and bear arms is protected by Second Amendment. So you should ask whether those gun control laws pushed down your throats are constitutional or not. If not, then enacting those laws means abrogating the Constitution and it will be invitation for your government to formalize stripping citizenry of remaining rights granted by the Constitution. IF there is real need to enact some form of gun control that wouldn't be fully constitional, government should consider amending the Constitution itself (regardless of how long this process will take) and only after that it can work on gun control laws. I know this is idealistic or even naive: I'm aware US government routinely ignores US Constitution BUT letting them formalize abrogations elevates problem a new level.
Just wondering, it sounds like they could quickly run out of 7 rounds the way they shoot.
Stigmatizing meantal health has killed more people than gun violence has in the military. Literally. We buried more soldiers last year from suicide than from combat and "combat related" deaths. That in the military which has a strong push to spread the message that it's good to go see the mental health folks and an aggressive, and at least somewhat effective, suicide prevention campaign.
This new law puts all NY state doctors, more specifically, mental health professionals, at greater risk of retaliation by patients who later have their guns taken away. The medical establishment will increasingly be viewed as an extension of law enforcement.
As for visiting a doctor, even for a routine checkup, don't mention owning guns nor any other types of weapons, don't talk about hunting, one's views on gun control, etc. Avoid the topic entirely. With electronic records and mandatory reporting laws, what one says to a doctor is often far from confidential.
"WE ARE AFRAID OF OUR FELLOW CITIZENS! That is what this new law is effectively stating."
Funny, I thought the need to own guns for 'protection' and 'just in case', and ESPECIALLY Concealed Carry was explicitly stating.
We ought to make drugs illegal, too! Let's end both problems, once and for all, with some simple legislation.
-- sudon't
Air-ride Equipped
Limit the amount of people that you can kill
Last time I checked, there was already a legal limit on how many people you can kill... Unless you are in a situation of self defense, it's zero.
I know, I know... you are referring to limits on technology, in which case this law does nothing to limit the amount of people that you can kill.
Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
I'm not generally for tougher gun laws, however I at least concede that I understand what they are trying to accomplish. However, the thinking behind the mental health part of this is purely reactive and probably not as effective as they would hope..
I fear the taking away of ones guns when they show mental illness will probably too little too late in almost every case where the person is driven to using that gun to harm someone. You probably won't know of their illness until they just do it. How many times have we heard the "but they seemed so nice and normal" line in situations like this? Also note that you could replace the 'gun' in my previous statement with almost anything. Knife, car, van full of ANFO, just to name a few.
Gun control does not reduce homicide rates.
Increased penalties are unlikely to help, and existing penalties already veer close to cruel and unusual punishment.
I don't own guns, and I don't want to own guns. I still oppose increased gun control as a matter of principle.
This will increase the number of calls into the check system by orders of magnitude. Today the usual NICS background check turnaround times vary by time of day and what else is going on (gun show weekend == one to four hour turnaround). And there's no mandate that the state return results in a timely manner, so access can be artificially manipulated by downstaffing the background check office or otherwise ensuring that the checks take an excessive amount of time. And there are stores which sell ammo but not firearms, so these will need to have access to the system.
Adding an extra hassle to each ammunition purchase pretty much guarantees that people are going to buy the maximum amount of ammunition allowable with each purchase, and also pool together purchases for groups of friends. Or just drive across state lines and buy their ammo in a "free state".
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
Quick question about the Second Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Has the U.S. ever assembled a militia? How would a militia be different from a national draft? Would gun ownership in the U.S. trump any ethical or religious objection to joining a militia?
From Wikipedia:
a military force composed of ordinary citizens to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service.
It seems that a militia is more of an emergency task force. Perhaps something like this would fall under FEMA rather than the military?
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
In Canada, as a general rule, the maximum magazine capacity is:
5 cartridges for most magazines designed for a semi-automatic centre-fire long gun; or
10 cartridges for most handgun magazines
A large-capacity magazine is not prohibited if it has been permanently altered so that it cannot hold more than the number of cartridges allowed by law. Acceptable ways to alter a magazine are set out in the regulations.
There is no limit to the magazine capacity for semi-automatic rim-fire long guns, or for other long guns that are not semi-automatics.
Works fine for us, not sure what all the fuss is about down south in gun-nut-land. Let's face it, the real issue is handguns, not rifles, anyway. Rifles should be for hunting, not home defense....home defense with a long gun is best covered by shotguns if you feel the need, although again, as a Canadian, the idea of "needing" a firearm for home defense seems ludicrous. Five rounds in a magazine is plenty for hunting purposes.
Handguns are only good for killing humans, so not sure why anyone besides the Police and Armed Forces should have them. If you are so scared of other people attacking you in a manner that would require a firearm as defense, you need to either a) move away from the hell-hole you are living in, or b) see a psychiatrist about your paranoid tenancies.
> Doesn't matter to all the junior McVeighs here on Slashdot
It's a matter of imagination, not subversion. Nanny state dependents with no imagination can't understand that there are other ways to engage in mayhem. We live in a highly advanced technological society with potentially dangerous materials all around us. We also live in a free society where knowledge about how to use and abuse such materials is freely available.
An industrial arts class from the 80s could probably get around this latest attempt at legislating away technology.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
"New York's law also aims to keep guns out of the hands of those will mental illness."
Then how the hell do they expect the government to get to keep the guns?
Don't worry - the NSA already trapped this traffic and is sending the Secret Service to investigate as we speak. Carry on, citizen.
I would have no problem with politicians pushing laws that turn out to be unconstitutional if there were some penalties for these actions. If someone sponsors a law that turns out to have been unconstitutional they should be executed. Just think of all the people harmed by one bad law that might be on the books for decades before it finally comes before the supreme court and gets overturned. Everyone who voted for the law should be barred from running for any office ever again. Seems a fair trade to me.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
There will be casualties, but that is expected...
It deeply disturbs me how freedom never enters into any of these arguments. For arguments sake, say I admit that allowing citizens to own guns will absolutely result in a significant rise if innocent deaths. As an aside: the same thing could be said of ownership of many other things.
Still why is freedom not even worth mentioning. Has it just become a buzzword, meaningless and not even understood? How did freedom ever become so meaningless and unwanted that it is not even included as a single point in arguments fundamentally about freedom?
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
ok... now lets see... 2 years from now will the homicide rate be down? I think we know the answer to that... so what's the point?
Yea, becuase unregulated guns are working out so well in the Middle East!
Actually, they are. They have allowed citizens to put tyrannical governments on the defensive long enough to form the basis for an alternative government and attract the international assistance required to disable the dictators' military.
Any bets on how many of Governor Cuomo or Mayor Bloomberg's bodyguards will be subject to these laws?(or follow them if they are?)
So if you are rich enough to hire someone to protect you, then you might be safe - but you can't be allowed to protect yourself.
http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur
I used to go with friends and shoot at ranges for fun. I've grown up since then.
this is ridiculousness, there is no reason for the government to have two differing definitions of what constitutes an assault weapon. this looks like a step towards disarming the citizenry completely to a point where the benefits of one out weigh the many. look back at history Napoleon and Hitler had "gun control" and we all know what happened there, these FEMA camps will be the new concentration camps. and someday history will refer to Obama just as it does Hitler. I bet he can't even recite the constitution and bill of rights from memory.
Wait for some people to be killed, then quickly pass a law to get rid of people's Constitutional rights that you wanted to get rid of even before the tragedy. Pay lip service to the tragedy but make sure the reach of the law is much broader since after all you're using the tragedy as an excuse.
It's all a load of crap because the only people who won't have the guns that are banned are the people who actually care about the law. The criminals will still get them. Do you actually think that, the kid that did the shooting wouldn't have found a way to get a gun if his mother didn't already have them. Anyone who wants to kill someone is going to do it regardless of the law. The only way killings would truly be reduced is if everyone had a gun. Then the good people could stop the bad people. Anyone ever here of Kennesaw, GA? Everyone is required to carry a gun in Kennesaw and there have been no Murders in Kennesaw since the law was enacted! The answer isn't more gun control the answer is more people need guns! Guns don't kill people, Crazy people kill people and they will continue to kill people regardless of what kind of gun control is enacted. The more you take from law abiding citizens the more death there is going to be because crazy doesn't care!
Good job validating all of the anti-gun arguments.
ALL weapons are military derivatives you dolt. One of the purposes of the military is to inflict violence and cause disruption. Weapons are critical to that mission. Weapons are also critical for keeping the peace, which is why the 2nd amendment guarantees we can have them. It's not a privilege, it's a right.....unless you believe the bill of rights is a bill of privileges.
We already have laws in place to address the concerns you list. Accountability is higher with firearms than with almost any other product. Intentional acts are prosecuted. Accidental acts are prosecuted. As well as everything in between.
You aren't after safety and accountability because we already have that. You don't like the fact that people have guns at all
Why can't you be honest about what you really want?
Each year there are more deaths related to drunk driving than homicides related to firearms.
http://www.centurycouncil.org/sites/default/files/files/Saving-Lives-for-20-Years.gif
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
If banning high cap mags is supposed to stop mass shootings, maybe banning 24-packs of beer will stop drunk driving.
Of the firearms deaths in the report, over 17,000 involve suicide (16,599), accidental discharge (824), or "undetermined intent" (324) 3 . Logic dictates that these events would overwhelmingly involve the discharge of a single bullet (after all, the firing of a second shot would likely mean it wasn't "accidental" and anyone seriously attempting to commit suicide would, at the very least, incapacitate themselves after the first shot). So how does removing bayonet lugs, banning folding stocks, or limiting high capacity magazines going to help this segment of the problem?
.
.
- 299 additional shooting reported in the statistics are legal interventions. What we might call “good shoots” performed by law enforcement.
- Of the remaining 10,828 firearm homicides, only the tiniest fraction (roughly 1%) of these involves "assault weapons". This was also true prior to the AWB. Statistically, any "benefits" from the AWB would be immeasurably small. Put another way, there were roughly 100 “assault weapon” deaths in 1993 prior to the AWB, there were roughly the same number in the years following the AWB. These are not my findings; they are the finding of The National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice. You see, the AWB included a requirement that the Attorney General provide a report to Congress within 30 months evaluating the effects of the ban 4
So that would mean that the odds of you dying in a firearm related homicide is in actuality more in the neighborhood of 1 in 26000. And the odds of you dying by the hand of an “assault weapon” wielding maniac would be on the order of 1 in 2.6 million, in any given year. The odds of such a thing happening over the entire course of your life would be around 1 in 34,000. By way of comparison, your lifetime odds of dying as an occupant in a car during a traffic accident is 1 in 247, 136 times greater than being killed by an “assault weapon”. Indeed, your odds of dying by a force of nature, such as lightning of flood, are over 11 times greater 5
2004 Official Journal of South Carolina
Meanwhile, we sink further into debt as a country due to the inaction of our elected officials with the debt per citizen over $50,000 without including any future obligations. But we are certainly safe from being killed by an mean gun now!
then of course enforcing the laws will confiscate your guns.
How about we put bad guys in jail, instead of punishing the millions of gun owners who haven't done anything wrong? A dramatic, double digit drop in murder rates for "Project Exile", vs. "challenges in discerning the effects of the ban"? Richmond, Virginia, had a program in the 1990s. "Project Exile". Short version: Mandatory additional 5 years in jail if you use a gun in a crime, or if you're a felon found possessing a gun or ammunition. Crime went down 40%.
https://house.resource.org/106/org.c-span.153371-1.pdf
From page 2 of this report, "Since the project began, the results have been evident. More than 200 armed criminals were removed from Richmond streets during the first year of Project Exile alone. An entire gang responsible for multiple murders has been dismantled. In 1998, murders were 33 percent below 1997, the lowest number since 1987. In 1999, murders are down yet another 29 percent."
Compare this with the Assault Weapons Ban, which accomplished nothing. Here's the National Institute of Justice's report, describing how it had no effect in reducing crime:
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_brief1999.pdf
"A number of factors—including the fact that the banned weapons and magazines were rarely used to commit murders in this country, the limited availability of data on the weapons, other components of the Crime Control Act of 1994, and State and local initiatives implemented at the same time—posed challenges in discerning the effects of the ban."
Yes, London did have riots, they were FAR less lethal then the LA riots. Which were in the US and were NOT stopped because of home owners owning guns.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Armed guards for Obama's children, gun-free zones for ours.
The weapons you are describing are military derivative firearms and by all rights, SHOULD be banned IMO. We, as a nation, have proven ourselves incapable of properly storing our firearms, incompetent at assessing who should have a firearm, and generally promoting the glorification of firearms use via the media, games, and certain aspects of our culture.
We have? That's interesting, seeing as how there are MILLIONS of firearms owned by We, as a Nation. Last I checked, there weren't MILLIONS of mass shootings happening.
At the same time, we have tried to claim that the right to own firearms does not come with any responsibility.
Bullshit. There are a LOT of Laws already that enforce responsible ownership of firearms. why aren't they being enforced?
Same for those of us in the gun culture. We have failed at our responsibility to safely possess firearms. We do not deserve them now.
I haven't gone on any mass shootings. How have I failed at my responsibility? My firearms are locked up when not in use.
You said something that I'd like to point out to be overdramatic in the least, and possibly flat-out manipulative; "now the vast majority of us - who will never use them irresponsibly - need to suffer". Can you please tell me how much you will suffer? If we combine the total suffering from all the people in the state who will lose their guns, do you believe that it is greater than the suffering felt by any combination of the parents of the Sandy Hook victims? If you want to bring suffering into this discussion, let's keep that perspective in mind.
i suffer because I am now handicapped in my ability to defend and protect my family and my loved ones. I suffer because something I enjoy has been taken away from me. And I suffer because I now know that you don't trust me, even without meeting me.
Criminals will not abide by these laws, and, contrary to your belief, banning them from law-abiding citizens will not majically make them disappear from the world, or make it any more difficult for a criminal to obtain.
By your reasoning, law-abiding citizens must now refrain from sex because a small percent of the population uses it to cause suffering and misery, we must reinstate Prohibition because a small percent of the population will drink and drive, and we must ban parenting because some small percent abuse their children.
The Court has decided that the police have NO DUTY to protect YOU as an individual. So who will protect my family?
so, no, you are not "in the know" here. You are another petty tyrant who believes he knows what is best for other people, and is determined to impose his will on the rest of society.
I will resist you, as I resist all who seek to curtail or eliminate my Rights.
Give up your gun or go to jail.
You are free to choose which one you want to do.
Oh, you could also leave. Which would ALSO mean that you get away from any oppressive government take over of your life.
Saw this somewhere else and liked it. Some people say that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Even more scary is that when guns are outlawed, only government will have guns.
Here goes:
I don't carry a gun to kill people.
I carry a gun to keep from being killed.
I don't carry a gun to scare people.
I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.
I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid.
I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.
I don't carry a gun because I'm evil.
I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the
world.
I don't carry a gun because I hate the government.
I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.
I don't carry a gun because I'm angry.
I carry a gun so that I don't have to spend the rest of my life hating
myself for failing to be prepared.
I don't carry a gun because I want to shoot someone.
I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not
on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.
I don't carry a gun because I'm a cowboy.
I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a
cowboy.
I don't carry a gun to make me feel like a man.
I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the
ones they love.
I don't carry a gun because I feel inadequate.
I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am
inadequate...
I don't carry a gun because I love it.
I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful
to me.
Police protection is an oxymoron.
Free citizens must protect themselves.
Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the
crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess.
Personally, I carry a gun because I'm too young to die and too old to
take an "ass" whoopin'....
His guns were legal in the state of his previous duty station and in the state of his new duty station but were not in the state he was driving through.
If the guns were illegal in the state he was in, what's the problem with them being confiscated?
I live in Canada. When I flew from Canada to the Caribbean with a stop in the USA, I had to go through customs in the USA *even though I never left the secure area of the airport*!
The fastest knee jerk in the country! Yayyy!
New York did something! Wooo!
It won't make a damn bit of difference, but hey, we don't care!
A finger in the eye of all those people who think their constitutional rights are more important than our emotional outbursts!
Ain't we great?
A big problem with gun control is that the government is once again trying to protect us from ourselves. If you make guns harder to get, they will be harder to get for honest people who need to protect themselves. Criminals aren't bothered by breaking the law now, and passing new gun laws won't bother them a bit. In fact, making more laws that are difficult if not impossible to enforce just weakens the enforcement of the laws we already have.
What, so psychiatrists can confiscate my murder pills, too?
We'll soon be left with nothing more than spitwads to defend our homes!
One down 49 to go!
I am more afraid of my fellow citizens driving than I am of them shooting me. Too many idiots txting, watching YouTube (yes I've seen it) on their phones while driving. Why don't we ban cars?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
This is the most INSANE thing I ever heard. At no point, in his speech did he even come close to a rational thought.
Lets break this down.
When the assault weapon ban was in place, murders and crime did not change with them, even in the few areas it did change, crimes with other guns filled the gap. (Keep in mind gun crime in the USA continues to DECLINE.
Also keep in mind School shootings STILL HAPPENED during the ban, remember Columbine? During Assault weapon ban. Timothy McVeigh who blew up federal building and killed hundreds? He had these weapons..but used a bomb.
Mental Health professionals already are saying they are not going to abide by these rules, it puts to many people at risk for prying eyes. Never mind that people with mental illness are not going to say "oh yah i have a gun write that down". Also who decides who is a "at risk" person. Just because someone calls them self god and owns a Ak-47 does not mean he is violent.
These knee jerk reactions, thought over mind you the course of a single month, offer nothing to improve any situation, or prevent anything.
I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of those that should not have them, but this is the dumbest move ever for the governor and president.
You want better gun laws? I have them right here, and are far better than what was put in motion. Yet non-intrusive and common sense.
1. Sell gun locks (trigger locks) with ALL armed weapons.
2. Better background checks.
3. All guns must be secure in house/premises they are located.
4. All guns in possession must be in you're name. No loaning guns.
That right there is it. Add thsoe to the current laws and its perfect. Majority of gun crime is from people taking other peoples guns and using them for crimes.
I would go even far enough that every gun owner with more than 3 guns must have a gun safe instead of locks.
The WHOLE point of the 2nd amendment was to prevent a tyrannical government or criminal force from taking advantage of the average American. END OF STORY
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
Thinking is a bit difficult for you, isn't it, when your wang replacement is threatened.
You mean in Iraq, where they were banned under Saddam and remain banned, or Afghanistan, where they are being used to fight off foreign invaders?
It's doubtful any of this will change anything in cases like this. It will require constitutional amendment + about 200 years for existing guns to disappear through attrition.
Since we're wishing, I'd like a 17-way with JLH, JLaw, LiLo, TayTay, Anne Hathaway, Vanessa Bayer from SNL for some reason, both elf chicks from LotR, ...
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Banning so called assault rifles will cause those who intend mass mayhem to switch to a far more devastating close range weapon - the 12 gauge pump shotgun. I'd much rather face someone with an AR and a 20 round magazine than someone with 8 rounds of 00 buck in a shotgun. And, lawmakers don't dare tray and ban them - they are way too popular for hunting, and it would ruin their strategy of trying to pit the outdoor sportsman type gun owners against the ugly black military style weapon owners.
There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
Why do those who hate guns always go to the penis argument. It's like the racist saying "but I've got black friends..."
Did you live in LA during the riots?
If not, please close your mouth and stop believing what you think you see on TV.
I did, and you know what? Police ain't coming. Fire department ain't coming. Nobody coming to help.
I had to decide whether to leave my apartment by trying to drive off in a car with no gas, or staying and hoping the presence of three cowering people with a baseball bat would keep anyone out. Stayed, other properties got robbed, we got avoided. Never again for that cowering shit.
I'm sure in your mind, i'd have gone on a killing spree if I had a weapon. Which is wrong, but you'll never believe that.
Ya, drug laws really put a stop to illegal drugs.
Hey dumbasses, this isn't a "republican" thing. Obama, the liberal jesus, is passing legislation without votes or congress. Pull your fucking biased ignorant heads out of your asses. They're all in it together, morons.
Gun crime has been going down already and some of the places with the worst crime have the strictest laws. To be honest they need to tackle mental illness before restricting guns but that would require good healthcare programs and better checks on people with no immediate results for the people who hate guns or fear everything.
I'm sure it will accomplish exactly what they think it will.
"New York's law also aims to keep guns out of the hands of those will mental illness"
yes, all those crazy people ready to shoot, hiding under every rock.
This is nothing more than an invitation to a witch hunt brought on by the ignorant.
If you read the DSM, everyone has something that could possibly be conceived as mentally ill, only some are prosecuted for a small unrelated portion who commit crimes. The interpretations are often politicial.
Don't agree with your boss, parents, school administrators politics, your crazy.
Don't buy into the latest trend from big media? Crazy!
Non-conformist? Crazy!
Outsider? Crazy!
It's a matter of imagination, not subversion. Nanny state dependents with no imagination can't understand that there are other ways to engage in mayhem.
Yeah, but penis extension worshipers just don't get the kick from propane.
How this stupidity is moderated as informative I can't imagine. I suppose all the female gun owners have penis envy too? The weak people who defend themselves with guns just wish they had bigger dicks?
Grow up.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
... that would neither have prevented nor (further) criminalized the scenario it was drawn up in response to.
On the plus side, we're not "fighting the last war". On the down side, we're not "fighting the next war" either.
As of 20 hours ago, cbs says 'It's still unclear what motivated the attack." Very hard to counter motivations like his, without knowing what his were.
And sadly, we have people spending time studying Adam Lanza's DNA, hoping for "extreme violence" tendency clues. Much like hoping to find whether a CPU has "goto tendencies". Or like tearing apart Einstein's brain, looking for where the genius node is.
1) Smaller clips? Bring more guns. Adam already did.
2) Background checks? Nobody has said Adam would have failed.
3) Tougher penalties? Adam committed suicide. Who you going to penalize?
4) Programs to cut gun violence? That's nice, if you can predict why or where. That isn't the case here.
5) "Well, we have to do SOMETHING!" - maybe for political reasons, yes. But as Slashdot says about the TSA, security theater doesn't make you safer.
there is a blurb in there about them. Now they can get back to ignoring the mentally ill.
It's a matter of imagination, not subversion. Nanny state dependents with no imagination can't understand that there are other ways to engage in mayhem.
Yeah, but penis extension worshipers just don't get the kick from propane.
How this stupidity is moderated as informative I can't imagine. I suppose all the female gun owners have penis envy too? The weak people who defend themselves with guns just wish they had bigger dicks?
Grow up.
I should grow up?
You do know that Bushmaster were advertising the AR15 with the slogan "consider your man card reissued"?
I'm just assuming they know their market.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Some (Sad) Real World Statistics:
So, clearly we have some major problems here. I would normally never argue that we should take away citizens' rights, and gun ownership is clearly a right in this country, but we have a major conflict here. The right of gun ownership VS the right of life. When you have an epidemic of gun violence that deprives citizens of their lives, you have to weigh these two rights.... and compromise.
Out here in the real world, when such discretion is given to a single individual, they will abuse that discretion, sell it, or neglect it.
To even broach the subject seriously shows an utter naivety about the wholesomeness and integrity of people put in such positions of discretionary power.
We (Americans) would like to live in a nation of laws, not a nation ruled by thousands of tiny little dictators in their own little regulatory fiefdoms.
Each legislative issuance of this sort of discretionary power is a retraction of freedom, no matter what the subject- whether it be guns, or zoning laws, or health care.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
And 500 kids a year under 6 were killed by their parents. 25 Sandy Hooks.
Obviously more knee jerk legislation is always the way to go.
Where's your rant on Victoria Secret commercials? Or Axe body wash?
It's funny to see potentially intellectual people on slashdot argue to their death the right to shoot something, or be shot at.
It's funny that the intellectual rest of the world (ie Europe) doesn't give a damn, has always banned guns and has next to zero problems with that.
Also nobody sees a gun as a solution to anything at all.
Might be that we defend ourselfs with actual walls and good locks instead of 'el cheapo wooden stuff and easy to pick locks.
Might be that we actually are one step further evolved than those wild west cowboys you americans still seem to be.
Oh, and our highways are actually built and used for driving, not crawling with 100 km/h on shiddy construction.
Old world 1 , New world -1
I should grow up?
You do know that Bushmaster were advertising the AR15 with the slogan "consider your man card reissued"?
I'm just assuming they know their market.
Yes, there have never been any other company that has had childish, offensive, sexist, racist, or otherwise insensitive advertising.
I can't wait until I see a racist advertisement so I can don a KKK cloak and go to town. You know, because they did it too.
More Twoson than Cupertino
Where's your rant on Victoria Secret commercials? Or Axe body wash?
Eeew. Victorias Secret is crap. Personaly I only buy Aubade.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
...to promote gun control, all one needs to do is point people to the comments in this thread. It's quite convincing.
"We need weapons to violently overthrow the government on a whim!!!"
Wow! And that sentiment got a lot of recs, too...
To the gun rights folks... You're not helping your cause when you spout crazed paranoia like that...
It also might help if you started caring about the rest of the constitution as well. You can start with the other amendments you like to ignore, but you should also focus on this clause, too:
Yeah, its unconstitutional to prepare for armed rebellion, so put your assault rifles away and let out your violent overthrow fantasies in videogames or something... until they are banned, 'cos we know that it's video games that are the true cause of violence, at least according to the NRA.
Allow me to illustrate for you who your REAL enemy is in terms of gun control. It's not the politicians. Contrary to popular /. opinion, our politicians are not stupid. It has, I guarantee you, occurred to at least some of our elected representatives that a ban on assault rifles is stupid and doesn't solve the problem. It has also occurred to many of them that the problem really is mentally ill people. However, there are two constituencies that are driving them to gun control measures. The first constituency happens to be socially & fiscally conservative pro-gun owners who insist on better policing of existing firearm regulations (good), and also reduce taxation for everyone in general, thus cutting down government waste and programs. This is admirable, except that mental health programs, asylums, and facilities in general that would benefit society by taking the mentally ill out of mainstream society and rehabilitating them are among the first local/county/state/federal funding expenditures to get cut because there's not enough of a constituency to represent them.
The second constituency, and the one with FAR more electoral power than the NRA, are suburban women voters. If you want to know WHO exactly is driving the push for gun control and pushing Rahm Emmanuel and all the other politicians in the country to do something about guns, it is this group. These are the voters who are working mothers, who have never grown up in a house with guns. Their children go to suburban schools very similar to Columbine and Sandy Hook. They've never been victims of violent crime. They've never had cause to fear a tyrannical government. But they DO know gun nuts. They all know at least one person who talks about government conspiracies, who brings up Obama at holiday dinners and how he's taking the county to damnation and socialism, who whispers darkly of the coming apocalypse over beers with their husbands on the back porch, and who owns a goddamn arsenal of scary-looking assault weapons. To these women, and their families, the Enemy is not urban black thugs. Nor is it black-clad government agents. The Enemy is the crazy gun nut down the street who doesn't seem to have his head screwed on straight, is paranoid and suspicious of everyone, has a whole lot of guns, and is constantly ranting about the government.
If you want to know the real reason why your gun rights are being taken away, go look in the mirror. You, and others like you, scare the hell out of these people who have no reason to fear the entities you fear. They fear YOU, and they are asking our government to do something about YOU. And they outnumber the NRA, they outnumber the responsible gun owners, and their voices will be heard. It is not a question of if gun control and an assault weapon ban is going to be enacted, but when. And bear this in mind: the day that women take to the streets and march in favor of gun control, is the day the Second Amendment will fall. Why? Because your Enemy won't be the black-clad federal troops coming to take away your guns, it's going to be the scared mothers, grandmothers, daughters, and sisters who are marching in the streets demanding political action because they don't feel safe around YOU. And let me ask you this: when it comes to that, are you willing to kill those women to keep your guns? Because THEY are the ones who the federal troops will obey. And THEY outnumber YOU.
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
Well, of COURSE I need a firearm to compensate for my penis.
I can't kill an assailant from ten paces with my penis.
Eight paces is my limit.
Check your sources. Many robberies and violent crimes were stopped by armed citizens during the LA riots.
Violence perpetrated by armed rioters, and indeed any criminal in a major US city, is committed with illegal handguns. It shouldn't surprise anyone that those people don't give a shit about gun laws. You're more than welcome to go look all this up.
Gun bans are a joke. You trade freedom for security, and get neither.
> We have a messed up society.
What the US has is a constitutionally protected gun business.
There are more than 20 US manufacturers of guns. This business is worth about $30 billion a year (
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2013/0103/A-look-at-America-s-gun-industry).
The US market for guns is more than 300 million people. Gun ownership in Canada and the UK, to cite figures from nations that have gun-control laws, is at about 30%. Gun ownership in the US is at about 80%.
So, the probability of a gun in the US being in the hands of a crazy person is very high.
The probability of a gun in the US being in the hands of a person who will *go crazy* at some point is also high.
The guns won't go away -- there are too many of them now, and a profitable, constitutionally protected gun business with a huge market will do whatever it must to keep producing and selling.
The only practical options for gun ownership are
constraints on types of weapons and quantity of ammunition for citizens, and
annual psychological testing of gun owners.
In short, political suicide.
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
Excerpt:
Unfortunately for LaPierre et al., the notion that Hitler confiscated
everyone’s guns is mostly bogus. And the ancillary claim that Jews could
have stopped the Holocaust with more guns doesn’t make any sense at all if
you think about it for more than a minute.
University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt explored this myth in
depth in a 2004 article published in the Fordham Law Review. As it turns
out, the Weimar Republic, the German government that immediately preceded
Hitler’s, actually had tougher gun laws than the Nazi regime. After its
defeat in World War I, and agreeing to the harsh surrender terms laid out
in the Treaty of Versailles, the German legislature in 1919 passed a law
that effectively banned all private firearm possession, leading the
government to confiscate guns already in circulation. In 1928, the
Reichstag relaxed the regulation a bit, but put in place a strict
registration regime that required citizens to acquire separate permits to
own guns, sell them or carry them.
The 1938 law signed by Hitler that LaPierre mentions in his book basically
does the opposite of what he says it did. “The 1938 revisions completely
deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well
as ammunition,” Harcourt wrote. Meanwhile, many more categories of people,
including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations
altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and
permit lengths were extended from one year to three years.
--- end excerpt ---
Later, the author goes on to say,
Excerpt:
Omer Bartov, a historian at Brown University who studies the Third Reich,
notes that the Jews probably wouldn’t have had much success fighting back.
“Just imagine the Jews of Germany exercising the right to bear arms and
fighting the SA, SS and the Wehrmacht. The [Russian] Red Army lost 7
million men fighting the Wehrmacht, despite its tanks and planes and
artillery. The Jews with pistols and shotguns would have done better?” he
told Salon.
--- end excerpt ---
Or, as an old net-friend of mine said once, "you're arguing that the D-Day invasion of Normandy was unnecessary, since it was obvious that the Wehrmacht would fall to the mighty French Resistance forces".
And saying that you need your guns to protect you from the govenment means a) you don't believe in democracy; b) hate America, and c) are traitors or fellow-travelers.
mark "take that and smoke it"
The bill was introduced into the NYS Assembly during a closed session in which the Governor barred any entry into the chambers. The video feed was put on delay. The session was started at 6pm at night. It was rushed through the Assembly to the Senate, so that they could rush it through the same night during closed session. The governor, Andrew Cuomo, then signed a declaration of emergency to waive the REQUIRED THREE-DAY PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, and signed the bill around 11:45pm. The bill is 84 pages in length. There was no chance for the senate or assembly to read the bill, or debate it's content.
This bill was pushed through without public comment or oversight, in a six-hour period, and labelled as an emergency measure, exactly to avoid public comment. This is not consent of the governed, the assembly and governor have lost the consent of the people, as most NYS citizens oppose this measure!
Surely, Slashdotters must be in an uproar over the gross injustice of this travesty of Justice!
captcha bonus: contrite
Should be 'New York Passes Useless Gun Control Law', since nothing in the law will make any positive difference in crime rates, and will only impact legal gun holders. My prediction is that like Chicago, New York will continue down the path of passing more and more restrictive gun control laws, which make it easier for criminals to commit more crimes and serve only to continue to drive their violent crime rates even higher above the national average. Meanwhile, I live in a community of over 600,000 people in a state with very few gun control laws (Arizona) that has a violent crime rate almost have the national average. Where I can open carry into a bank (and have) and no one runs out in fear, the tellers smile, say high, and take my deposit as if nothing was wrong.
Because nothing was wrong.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
Whenever gun control comes up my Father always tells us about kids in his shop class in the 60's making zip guns. And even if the government managed to lock down commercial ammunition it's not like the manufacture of black powder is a secret.
The NRA is quick to jump up and say "don't ban the gun. Prevent people with mental problems from getting them", but they also say "if you take away people's guns, only criminals will have them." So which is it? You CAN control who gets guns or you CAN'T? Do you think someone who is suffering mental problems is going to have any more trouble getting guns than a criminal?
Since, as the NRA says, you can't control who gets guns, you have to eliminate the guns.
Yep, whenever gun control comes up I figure if it gets too severe they'll have to enact machine-tool control. GLWT. We never made guns in shop--just hammers and screw drivers. We forged the blade and stuck the hot metal in plastic for a handle. Great fun. I hope metal shop is still there.
The closest I saw to machine-tool control was when the Israelis bombed a target in Gaza that was said to be a machine shop involved in manufacturing weapons parts. That's the level you have to go to if you want to stop a truly determined gunsmith.
Isn't it telling that the ballyhooed Biden commission has not yet issued a report, and the administration is rolling out the gun control machinery? They were of course just itching for a pretext to do that. What a joke of an administration.
Seems to me that the NRA's idea of armed guards *everywhere* is less than one step from fascism, not freedom.
mark "don't have a gun; don't need one; not a coward"
Aviation policy is written in blood. Gun policy is written in tears. The result? We have safe skies, and dangerous streets.
It's an interesting coincidence that we have an aviation problem ongoing now too. I bet the Boeing problem will be examined not only from a technology standpoint (ban this battery) but from a social standpoint (how did this battery get past QC?). That's the blood, both literal and figurative of the airline business.
The gun problem will be addressed with an insanity that rivals that of the crazed shooters themselves. Obama refuses to address the elephant in the room--how to enact a saner policy that preserves the 2nd Amendmant rights. Perhaps that would mean a Swiss-style policy, where you must join an organization that periodically checks your fitness for ownership of certain weapons. It might even pass muster without modifying the Constitution. Instead we'll ignore that issue and it'll end up being a SCOTUS mess and/or mass civil disobediance, or selective enforcement, or just another way to tack more years onto criminal sentences. Nothing will really be fixed, because it'll all be done on pure emotion and the documents that are supposed to govern us are being ignored. It'll be done like this because people are bawling their eyes out and politicians feel like they have to do something. Those are the tears, both literal and figurative of guns in America.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
You and Helen Clark apparently fail modern Australian history.
Yeah, because the FBI catches every bomber that blows himself up.
"Stop talking sense"
Said the guy living with his parents.
Jesus Christ mozmurder, you are a G-man through and through. Not everyone thinks the right solution is an all out civil war. But there are allot of sane rational people who have tried their damnedest to play by the rules, affect change, and simply KNOW BETTER THEN YOUR CLOSE MINDED BIGOTRY towards everything that doesn't fit the perfect pyramid of rich to poor, power to powerlessness.
STFU.
So you didn't need a gun. That's nice.
How about you tell these kids that they didn't need a gun either.
http://www.examiner.com/article/home-alone-12-year-old-oklahoma-girl-shoots-intruder-with-mom-s-gun
http://www.examiner.com/article/14-year-old-phoenix-boy-shoots-armed-intruder-while-babysitting-siblings
What should they have done? Called the police? The girl was already on the phone with 911 when she shot the intruder. Where do you think she'd be now if she hadn't had a gun? Do you think she'd still be dead, or merely raped, or simply abducted?
So you haven't needed a gun? Well, consider yourself lucky.
...but it's an exercise in futility.
But it Does Not Happen. There are no stories from the UK or France or Germany or Sweden of crazed killers who've cooked up some clever death dealing machine in their kitchen and then wreaked mayhem on the streets, are there? Mass killings in these countries are dramatically rarer than in the US, and still involve guns for the most part.
I'm not a Catholic, but they have an interesting policy in place regarding the selection of saints.
The first step is they must have already been dead 5 years. That way their initial popularity has waned somewhat and there is less pressure to hurry them through the process.
It would be interesting if similar restraints acted on the legal process, to avoid kneejerk emotional legislation that doesn't solve the problem but often makes it worse.
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
Sensible changes to how one legally acquires a gun and increased penalties for violence. Nobody's TERKIN YER GERNS. See how easy that is?
Great idea. Look up "US gun massacres". Now research what happened to the perpetrators over the last 60 years: in 94% of cases, they either killed themselves, or were killed by law enforcement.
What penalty increase over "dead" are you suggesting here? I'm pretty sure this was abolished in 1823 in England, but it used to be that suicides and criminals killed in the commission of a crime could have their bodies impaled postmortem and placed by the side of the highway; perhaps we should bring the practice back?
What actually needs to happen is increased mental health support, including bringing back involuntary commitment and involuntary treatment, both of which went out the window under Reagan as cost-cutting measures, echoing nationally what he had done as governor of California. Now, you can't force mentally ill people to maintain medication, and to be monitored on compliance with treatment, since that would be a violation of their rights.
Personally, I think that an ROR (Release on Own Recognizance) for potentially violent mental illnesses simply shouldn't happen without a mandator implant of a drug pump to keep them sane. It's you're right to refuse the implant, but it's societies right to keep you locked up so that you are guaranteed your medication, should you refuse that treatment alternative.
It's a matter of imagination, not subversion. Nanny state dependents with no imagination can't understand that there are other ways to engage in mayhem.
Yeah, but penis extension worshipers just don't get the kick from propane.
How this stupidity is moderated as informative I can't imagine. I suppose all the female gun owners have penis envy too? The weak people who defend themselves with guns just wish they had bigger dicks?
Grow up.
I should grow up?
You do know that Bushmaster were advertising the AR15 with the slogan "consider your man card reissued"?
I'm just assuming they know their market.
Yes, and I'm also familiar with the concept of marketing. Your statement on the other hand was not marketing or anything like it but was intended to belittle and propagate stereotypes. So yes. Grow up.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
If the firearm is designed to kill people, ban them with the exception of police and military forces. So pistols and automatic weapons.
Firearms used for hunting, so rifles, and shotguns, are fine. Limit clip/mag size to 5. Unless you are laying waste to a herd of deer illegally, or are the worst shot alive (by which time the game will have fled anyway) you don't need more.
As far as defending against home intruders and government: A) A shotgun in close quarters is probably easier to use for the relitevly untrained, and is way more scary to boot. Hell 50 Cent survived getting shot like 7 times with a 9mm, guess how many home invaders would survive a blast or two if a 12 guage at close range, i'm guessing zero (not that I'm calling 50 cent a home invader, its just an example, relax). B) How much of a fight to you really think the few of you that actually own an assult rifle or whatever VS what is a modern US army for example. How much of a difference do you think it would make to only be limited to a 5 shot rifle? Hint: The answer to both is "not much".
Seems like a pretty common sense simple thing to do, but hey whatever. Don't sell weapons designed *specifically* to kill people to the general public and then get all surprised when *GASP*, they are used to kill people...
Does anyone else think it hilarious that this brave gun control zealot posts as an anonymous coward while calling his opponents the same?
So many gun control advocates want to play this card when it is in fact themselves that are cowards. They quake in their boots and wet their pants at the mere mention of assault rifles. Anyone who has grown up with families that hunt have no irrational fear of firearms. The problem is that this is no rational debate. It is an irrational emotional fear which drives one segment of the electorate to seek to deprive the other of its rights. While I don't hunt, many of my family and friends do, and I shudder at the whining I've heard the past two weeks over guns.
I'm sorry for everyone thinking of the children and using them as an excuse to push an unconstitutional political agenda but mass school shootings aren't even a statistically significant cause of death. Somewhere in the ballpark of death by lightning strike. Your child's chances of being struck by lightning are much greater than getting killed in a mass shooting.
A car is a capable of far more damage than a gun, they kill a hell of a lot more people than guns, and outlawing cars wouldn't be a direct violation of the Constitution in the way these gun control laws are.
Stop trampling on people's rights and cut this gun control crap out. If anything we should be relaxing gun laws. Require schools to have a number of "safety officers" based on student population. Let them determine their own method of selecting teachers to occupy these roles there are generally no shortage of former military among gym teachers and administrators. These teachers should have special training and concealed weapons permits, concealed weapons, and a bump in pay. Maybe lock a few rifles up securely somewhere on the off chance something more is needed. Then give them radios and wire an alarm button to every teachers desk. Press the button and the safety officers all get an alert over the radio indicating the class.
Doesn't put guns into unqualified hands. Doesn't put a useless TSA style security checkpoint at the door. Doesn't involve openly armed authority figures roaming the halls desensitizing children to a police state. But does drastically reduce the damage a rogue child can do before being put down.
Additionally, weapon (including gun) safety and usage courses should be a mandatory part of the school curriculum with a certification given at the end. Hopefully this will reduce hysteria, accidental shootings, and maybe lead to a boost in private gun ownership thereby making our nation safer and reducing crime. Statistics all show that gun owners who have gotten this sort of training are safer and more responsible by far than the general population (and not just with guns).
In Suburban Sydney, Australia.
To keep your licence for a gun, The police must come to your house and see your 3 point locked storage.
I can't recall all the details - But I believe the fireing pin bust be stored seperate.
And I'm pretty sure the 3 point storage must be secured so it can't be stolen also.
I have never heard one complaint from gun owners about this arrangement.
for the shootist that will do his/her rampage with a single shot weapon.
Can't find an article on it, but I seem to remember a case where some terrorists suffered from "premature detonation" because their bomb was set to the wrong time-zone when they crossed into a neighbouring country/province (or they missed DST)
Every month we have another crazy man gun shooting. You can't possibly pass any gun laws without being called "reactionary" because there is always a recent event one can point to; advocates naturally will use recent events to promote their cause. Duh. The proposals have been around for decades and are NOT new; obviously they are not designed for this specific shooting. The good part of this event is that more people are talking about CRAZY PEOPLE than previously and I think that is the case because nothing previously discussed would have stopped the madman.
Reactionary would be putting cops in the schools... done in many places since the 90s... cameras, metal detectors, door bells, 1 open entrance, a more prison-like school system-- that has been done and that was reactionary because it did just about nothing beneficial... like the TSA theater. These old proposals WILL do something in general and are not completely without merit. There is no magic bullet to this problem ;-)
That being said, I'd ban ALL hand guns completely. I'm for FREE serious assault weapons with heavy regulation; I'm not keen on hunting rifles but i'd let them keep their so-called "sport." Hand guns are not serious arms and cause nothing but trouble... even the cops don't properly use theirs.
Finding the "crazy gene" is worth it only if someday in the future we have the political will to impose regulation on procreation or mandatory gene therapy. Otherwise you have people who will be cursed by their DNA when people find out they have the pedophile gene... etc.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Is that really true though? Internal Magazines aren't banned, you're just not allowed to load more than 7 rounds. I can take an 1897 Winchester Shotgun and put only 7 rounds into the internal magazine and it will work perfectly fine. An M1 Garand doesn't load like that. You need to get a full en-bloc clip (8 rounds) and press that into the magazine. If you only put 7 rounds into the clip the gun doesn't load properly.
Do you Gentoo!?
Your statement would lead one to believe that it was the wild west out here, when it isnt.
Which is a pity. Because the wild west would be far better than what we have now (radio, television, and movie portrayals nonwithstanding).
Heck: It had a lower per-capita rate of shootings and murders than cities like New York had back THEN.
Then you have the occasional thing like the gunfight at the OK Corral - which was a gang of corrupt cops executing some local businessmen. Look it up.
It's apropos to the current debate, too. The Earp Gang (also known as "The Pimp Gang") instituted gun control in Dodge City in order to make it easier to enforce their monopoly on prostitution and crooked gambling halls. (The concealed-carry shoulder holster was invented in response to them.) There are still descendants of the families in the area (including some of my in-laws) who occasionally find time to visit - and urinate on - Wyat's grave.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
http://breathedbrain.tumblr.com/image/412201190
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
In the USA, pretty much anyone can buy or sell a gun with little or no safety or sanity check, particularly at gun shows; kids clearly have easy access to them, as schools find it necessary to check for them on entry.
But you can't buy your kid a Kinder Egg, and now you can't even play making your hand into a gun.
You people over there need to make some serious changes to your laws before you become the laughing-stock of the westernised world.
"The Waxwing Slain" is not my website.
You are welcome on my lawn.
WE ARE AFRAID OF OUR FELLOW CITIZENS! That is what this new law is effectively stating.
Funny, I thought the need to own guns for 'protection' and 'just in case', and ESPECIALLY Concealed Carry was explicitly stating.
People who carry concealed may do so out of fear, but it is fear of criminals with no regard for the law. Laws such as the New York law are passed out of fear of the law-abiding citizen, since by definition the aforementioned criminals don't care.
my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
Know it is really true guns kill and not very often the bad guy.
Reading comments here as a European leaves me feeling alien and uneducated in the nature of humans.
Apart from all the homicide-rate back and forth, let me add a personal anecdote. Usually anecdotes are meaningless in a good discussion, but arguments seem to be as well here...
My wife was shot at the age of 18 by a little nephew of hers, which left her left arm and hand dysfunctional; she nearly lost it. It determined the rest of her life. One can argue that it was an accident. But you know what made this happen? The fact that the gun existed, and the macho culture that went along with the guns. Without the gun, my wife would be able to ride a bicycle alone, now no more.
When I read the argument about the homicide rate being so low in Switzerland even though there are so many guns, then one forgets that aspect: guns in Switzerland are not considered a status symbol in a macho world, neither a defense weapon, neither being treated as a daily part of society. Most of the pro-gun-ownership people would not like the Swiss way either.
My wife just tested positively pregnant. I know she will cry a tear just from seeing the baby having two healthy arms.
I want to point out that the person who wrote the above wants to have completely unrestricted access to firearms. And to prove that he is a responsible and law-abiding person who has every right to own firearms, he wants to kill a guy who makes music that I enjoy and promote by putting a link to his website in the "URL" section of my profile. Oh, and rape and kill his family too.
Those things I said about "Second Amendment activists"? I rest my case.
You are welcome on my lawn.
*ahem*
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2148355/Convicted-felon-Randy-Smith-turns-Super-Soaker-water-pistol-deadly-shotgun.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2165531/Its-wild-wild-West-Midlands-Homemade-gun-Uzis-Ak47s-make-huge-haul-firearms-seized-police-just-year.html
There was also the case of a UK fellow arrested a few years back for merely posting how to machine your own firearms.
Try READING what our founders wrote! (not the modern interpretations by a bunch of ivy-covered elites... or the fevered hallucinations of the morons at HuffPo or Kos) The founders wrote LOTS of stuff and it's readily available (and as a bonus it's even written in English - though admittedly this means language might be a problem for recent high-school graduates....)
The "militia" as ABSOLUTELY NOT the National Guard! That would be logically IMPOSSIBLE The Militia is ALL free adult American men who are mentally competent, and who do not object on religious grounds. They are intended to exists for two reasons:
The National Guard in the US is in the President's chain-of-command and therefore, by definition, is the opposite of "the militia" our founders wrote about.
A government that does not trust its citizens with guns is a government that deserves no trust from its citizens
First, try not to cite law professors in law reviews in matters of (a) guns (b) war (c) history. They are unqualified and uneducated in those fields.... in fact they are pretty much useless for anything other than academic debates in sterile classrooms where they can impress a captive audience of generally ignorant recent highschool grads
Second, "the militia", as envisioned by this nations founders, were not supposed to be the "French Resistance" (a bunch of well-meaning folks with lots of wine and cheese and a few crummy pistols to pass-around (yeah... I'm being overly snarky here...) ) Our militia had rifles that were in many ways better than the front-line combat weapons of the world's mightiest army of their day.
Third, the Jews in Germany lived among their fellow German citizens and NOT in same far-away cities of Russia where the German Luftwaffe was free to bomb and the German tanks were free to shell. If every German Jew had had lots of ammo and the same front-line weapons as the German Army then the NAZI thugs who showed-up to drag a family out would have died on the spot.... the German tank and air forces would not have simply felt free to level the entire city trying to get a family of Jews. It's not possible for me OR any idiot law professor to fully examine the counterfactuals here but what is CERTAIN is that it would have been one VERY costly effort to load all of Germany's Jews onto the trains and send them to the camps in this alternate reality BUT as unarmed as they were the Jews mostly lacked any alternative than to submit to their own government as it slaughtered them like cattle. Better to die on your feet with some degree of dignity.
In my case, on a different thread.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Fucking morons. I agree we should ban assault weapons, so that the citizens can't kill each other like they are now. But first shouldn't we just outlaw murder. That way you cut to the heart of the problem. If the government would only outlaw murder we could drastically cut down on the homicide rate. The problem with this country is that there are not enough laws. We need more laws, More laws will keep us safe.
IANAL but I am pretty sure he would need to make an actual threat or statement of intent. For example, he would have to say that he was going to put that bullet there, or that he is encouraging other specific people to put the bullet there, not that the bullet should be there.
Might be a good idea to err on the side of caution when expressing such opinons about the President. The Secret Service is apt to be a trifle techy about such suggestions.
I know that misinterpretation is a long word but it's in the dictionary. I'm describing the nuts that for some reason think the 2nd amendment is an excuse to have the most effective guns they can afford for the purpose of killing government forces. The example played out recently with the dead firefighters shows just how stupid and tragic such a misinterpretation is when actually applied.
This is a common and often misinterpreted rubuttel to the aforementioned misinterpretation. I took that oath. Why? Cause I was joining the military. I was going to work for Uncle Sam. Those politicians that take it are also going to work for Uncle Sam. Have you ever worked for a company that has explicitly told you to overthrow the CEO if he fails? Of course not and the US Gov isn't gonna tell you to do it either. Enemies foreign and domestic are enemies OF the goverment, not the government itself. So who are these domestic enemies you say? Well that would be folks like yourself (and say The Confederate States of America) who against the Constitution, advocate treasonous acts like 'rising up' against the government. That is there specifically to make it legal for a soldier or LEO under lawful orders from someone like the Governor (who took the oath) to shoot you in the face with impunity. The Militia that the 2nd refers to is there to repel military invasions of conquering nations, not to cut the gov's own throat. I assure you if it comes down to needing to activate the Unorganized Militia, then the gov, against all weapons bans, will readily hand you a well used M16...and the dude next to you the magazine for it.
You should be banned, and get to explain yourself to the police. Ratzo can be tedious, but death threats are way, way over the line. You are way wrong and damage the cause you claim to support. I oppose just about everything Ratzo writes, but I would defend him against your physical attack if it came down to it and I was present. You need to rethink your life before you find yourself in prison.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
1.ban all self-loading guns and smokeless powder
2.you must not conceal your guns
3.everyone who carrying guns must wear cowboy hat
Guns dont kill people... Doctors kill people
http://www.cancure.org/medical_errors.htm
. . . he wants to kill a guy who makes music that I enjoy and promote by putting a link to his website in the "URL" section of my profile. Oh, and rape and kill his family too.
Those things I said about "Second Amendment activists"? I rest my case.
PopeRatzo, you may recall that I frequently oppose you in strong terms. What that cretin did in threatening you and your family was vile, completely over the line, in short: evil*. He should be banned and get to explain himself to the police. If we were at a local Italian bistro, I trust you know one or two, enjoying good food and a heated discussion, and that foul creature attacked, I would gladly join in your defense with whatever was at hand. Pax. (I also relied to him separately.)
Oh, and no, he doesn't in any way represent the tens of millions of law abiding Americans that support and defend their second amendment rights any more than the Weather Underground represents ACLU members defending the first amendment.
* In the traditionally understood, completely non-ironic sense.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
It's a matter of imagination, not subversion. Nanny state dependents with no imagination can't understand that there are other ways to engage in mayhem.
Yeah, but penis extension worshipers just don't get the kick from propane.
How this stupidity is moderated as informative I can't imagine. I suppose all the female gun owners have penis envy too? The weak people who defend themselves with guns just wish they had bigger dicks?
Grow up.
I should grow up?
You do know that Bushmaster were advertising the AR15 with the slogan "consider your man card reissued"?
I'm just assuming they know their market.
Yes, and I'm also familiar with the concept of marketing. Your statement on the other hand was not marketing or anything like it but was intended to belittle and propagate stereotypes. So yes. Grow up.
What is your problem with my using belittling stereotypes about mass murderers?
Oh, it was your instant assumption I was talking about your penis substitute, not Adam Lanza's one. Maybe you should grow up.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Yeah, you're right.
On the other hand, he makes a very strong case for why there should not be unfettered and unlimited access to firearms. Some people just can't handle it.
There are reasonable limits put on every single one of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution that have been upheld by many Supreme Courts. The gentleman with the threats is why.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Go on. Keep it up. At this rate citizens of the old US of A should learn how to say 'G'Day' because at this rate you'll be just like Australia very soon.
Can't say I like the America of today, but I do get behind the idea that citizens can represent themselves in war if need be, even if that war is against the current standing government.
I think the tickle in your throat is your brain or your conscience. Because the links you provide are *not* to "stories from the UK or France or Germany or Sweden of crazed killers who've cooked up some clever death dealing machine in their kitchen and then wreaked mayhem on the streets". In fact:
- your first story is about a Californian criminal making a gun that wouldn't have worked if he had fired it, but he didn't fire it. In Fresno. So not the UK or another Western European state, not a clever death dealing machine, and no mayhem. Apart from that, great choice of article!
- your second story is at least in the right country, but is not about clever death dealing machines -- it's about replica guns -- and is not about mayhem on the streets (because none has been implicated in a mass killing). Another great choice of article!
The OP argued that tighter gun control would lead to attacks using *different methods* eg Sarin gas, bombs, etc. I will now spell this out for you, as you are either too stupid or too obtuse to realise what this is about: there are no examples of people carrying out mass attacks using Sarin gas, bombs or other non-gun methods that they cooked up at home in Western Europe, despite gun control. Gun control does not therefore lead to attacks using different methods.
Back in your box
I'm playing devils advocate in this post and trying to get you non gun owners to see how unreasonable you are being when you tell gun owners what they should be allowed to buy and own.
Every year there are FAR more deaths caused by automobiles than firearms can even begin to touch. But do we blame the 80 year old who is probably too old to drive and hit the accelerator thinking it was the brake, and mowing down dozens of people in the process? Or do we blame the dangerous automobile which in the hands of the inept, or the maniacal, allows a normal human being to become an unstoppable killing machine.
Imagine instead of a school shooting, the debate was somebody driving into a crowded market and running dozens of children over. And in response to this, instead of seeing it for the singular act of craziness it is, the politicians and non car owners go up in arms saying that cars are dangerous, and no reasonable person could ever need a car with more than 60 horsepower because the speed limit is 55-70mph in most states. Then New York passes a landmark law that bans all sports cars, all trucks, and mandates that no car can have more than 60 horsepower or a gas tank that can run for more than an hour so that people cannot go on long police chases.
Now imagine, as a car owner, having these people telling you that YOUR car is the reason for the tragic mowing down of little kids, not the stupid driver, but the car itself and then further imagine that the politicians and non car owners start trying to tell you that nobody needs a car with more than 60 horsepower or an hour of gasoline.
That is exactly what is happening right now to gun owners. The same way that you might like to drive something more than an econobox because it's fun, and you like sporty cars, some gun owners like exotic guns, and semi automatic rifles. You don't like faster cars because you think you're going to drive in the Indy 5000 some day any more than some gun owners like assault rifles because they think they might need to fend off armed attackers.
Except that you may never be exptected to drive in a professional racecar race but it's absolutely important to the freedom of your country that you should be able to arm yourself to fend off all attackers foreign AND DOMESTIC. The reason we have the right to bear arms is to defend our nation from all tyranny, whether it be a corrupt government or a foreign invader.
As many people have stated, assault rifles make up less than 1% of firearm deaths every year. Mass shootings happen incredibly infrequently and they are the fault of deranged individuals. If I needed to kill dozens of people I wouldn't need an AR15, I'd just need to point the front end of my car into a crowd of people.....your car is more of a killing machine than any rifle, and everybody has one.
Society operates on trust. Trust that the other people you meet arn't trying to do you harm. This is the only way our society can operate. If we operated on the assumption that everyone was trying to do us harm, we could never leave our houses, we could never do business with each other, socialize, work with each other, in effect society would cease to exist. The fact that mass murders sometimes occur is a small price we sometimes pay for having an open society built on trust. Inevitably some people will betray that trust, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't trust each other, it means some people are despicable.
How to win at terrorism, attack people, and instead of blaming you they blame each other. Instead of punishing you, they punish themselves. Instead of taking away your freedom by putting you in prison, they take away their own freedoms. This is how terrorism wins folks.
Blame the asshole who pulled the trigger, not the weapon they chose and definitely not the people who also use those weapons. Think about the killing power of an automobile the next time you are driving past a school crossing full of children. Trust.
And for the record, you don't even have a constitutional right to own and operate an automobile but you do for owning and using firearms.
This is just more knee-jerk legislation based on a hot topic. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think these laws will prevent another horrible shooting. I think the legislators just want to appear to be doing something, even if it's not based on anything tangible. The truth is that you can't legislate responsibility any more than you can legislate morality, or for that matter, mental health.
What's that horrible smell? Oh, it's just NY defecating on the Bill of Rights.
Only unethical lawyers benefit from contradictions in the legal system, because these create artificial demand for the services of their profession.
Legal professionals can not pass a law that contradicts the well established intent of the Founding Fathers in writing the Second Amendment, without also engaging in unethical conduct.
Is it too much to ask that, should there be a need for more gun control laws, you FIRST AMEND THE CONSTITUTION so that THOSE LAWS WILL BE LEGAL AND ETHICAL ???
I wonder if one reasonable interpretation of the 2nd amendment could require periodic training of 'the militia'? Why couldn't the president require two weekends a month of training for firearm owners, so they would be ready if Mexico or Canada invades?
Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company -- Mark Twain
How many card carrying NRA members where there has been an accident with the hand guns they legitimately own and there kids or family members have died. Think the right to bare arms is a good thing?
Here in Aussie we have much stricter gun laws and guess what by proportion we have less crimes committed with guns. It's a no brainier.
Mind you a large chunk of the world is sitting back saying "Yup let the Yanks wipe them selves out"
So much for the oaths legal professionals swear to uphold the Bill of Rights.
Both the text of, and the intentions of the Founding Fathers with respect to, the 2nd Amendment are clear from the historical record.
It is not within the legal authority of ANY state or local government to pass laws of this kind, whether or not the laws make sense or provide value to society, without first getting an Amendment to the Constitution to override the existing text of the 2nd Amendment.
Not even the Supreme Court can authorize the state governments to do this, as the justices of the court must themselves swear oaths to uphold the Bill of Rights. If the Supreme Court were to make any ruling authorizing the states to pass such laws, the judges making the ruling would be in clear violation of these oaths, which would immediately and permanently disqualify them from being on the Supreme Court. Any historical ruling to this effect is necessarily an illegal ruling, which all legal professionals have an ethical obligation to disregard.
Putting that in other words, no entity of government has the legal authority to authorize other governmental entities to violate the Bill of Rights.
Once again, our incompetent, short-sighted, and unethical politicians have screwed up.
Well WTF are the anti-gunners thinking, banning clips for "assault" weapons over 6. My Tech firearm has a 13 in the clip and one chambered, so that said, guess the weapons of choice will be concealed from know on, by the POS's, but yet again since when do criminals obey the law? This freakin' country still is going down the toilet.........all due to the clueless........
OK. One revolver and one bullet counts one criminal event, right? And what about one machine gun with 500 bullets? Also counts one criminal event? ... or at least make sure nobody else will survive. OK.... Put guns on hands of the "good guys" or school teachers... and make sure the "bad guys" will be killed. Beautiful! Have you bought this idea? Do you also believe in Santa Klaus?
You Americans are needlessly addicted to guns. And you still dare to say that terrorists from Middle East or whatever are dangerous. Obviously they are dangerous! You Americans and also the Russians fueled them with all weapons you were able to manufacture and convince them to buy!!! And then you have to reinforce your border security, then you have to reinforce Police, Intelligence, CIA and all dozens organizations alike. This is simply nonsense. America should not promote violence in the first place. I was shocked when I first travelled to the US and I saw dozens of riffles available to sell in Wal-Mart. Right to defend yourself, isn't it? And then you feel safe. Beautiful! This is like the cold war: enough nukes to destroy the entire globe 40 times. Right to defend yourself, correct?
Unfortunately innocent children had to die in order to make you Americans wake up from the allucinating dream. Wake up America!
Go read the Constitution. Nowhere in that document, the Bill of Rights, or in any of the Amendments is the word tyrant, tyranny, or oppression used. Not once. If the founding fathers were so worried about a tyrant taking over the new governement they fought so hard over then one would think they would have mentioned it. They didn't. The 2nd Amendment clearly spells out what the right to bear arms is used for: the Militia. If they wanted citizens to have weaponry for any reason at all then the Amendment would have simply said "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" but it has that qualifying statement first. If you study legalese then you would see that one or 2 extra little words means one hell of a difference in the application of any law or contract. Regardless of what the founding fathers or interested parties at the time wrote in thier personal or academic writings as for the reason they were doing X, they didn't codify that into law. That is a mistake on thier part. This entire nonsense could be completely cleared up with an amendment that does clearly state what they mean. You can see it in many of the newer amendments. Starting with the 13th Amendment most of them have as a final section: "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Why did they have to add that? Well because of the 'rules lawyer' type of folks who would try and universally apply it. It explicitly says Congress, not the President, not the Supreme Court, State Legislature or even you have that authority. Only Congress does. In that light, you cannot reasonably argue that the 2nd says anything other than what it says. If that isn't good enough for you then I suggest you and like-minded folks get together and petition for an amendment that does clarify what the 2nd says. I reject the typical 4 Box method of political action. Not once in the Constitution does it advocate for anyone to go get an ammo box and overthrow the government. The treason clause actually criminalizes it. Now please don't misconstrue anywhere in either of my posts that I hate you all and want to take away your guns. I am not arguing for or against them. I'm simply arguing against the belief that our forefathers wanted us as a nation to rise up and destroy a corrupt government or that enemies foreign or domestic included the governement itself. There is no codifed law supporting that notion. PS I apologize for the wall of text. Evidently the default setting in /. for plain text doesn't allow for carriage returns. The dropdown box that used to let you change it appears to be gone and whatever is supposed to pop up when you hit the options button is blocked by GPO or the firewall.
"Whereas hollow point and soft-tipped bullets are designed to expand upon impact, full metal jacket bullets are limited in their capacity to expand. This makes the bullet pierce through, in many cases leading to decreased target damage. Hollow point and soft tipped bullets are for use against soft targets only, such as animals or people, whereas full metal jacketed bullets can be indiscriminately used against soft and hard targets, delivering sub-optimal damage to both kinds of targets."
Full metal jacket (FMJ) ammunition is designed to pierce a target and pass through, rather than expand and inflict lethal damage. This is done for two purposes, the first is that a soldier with an injury that can be treated results an evacuation that occupies at least two soldiers. The second purpose is with an automatic weapon, multiple soldiers may be hit with a single round, resulting in fewer rounds spend for the same tactical effectiveness.
It is the increased potential for survival that has made FMJ rounds mandatory according to the Hague Convention. Expanding rounds, as it related to military small arms, fall into the interpretation of "arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury."
But the opposite is true for hunters and most sport shooters. Where Lead nose and hollow point are valued for their expansion, which is important for a quick painless kill on medium and large game. And Lead nose is valued in sport shooting for its convenience, barrel wear, customization through hand loading and consistent performance.
Isn't the purpose of having so much guns in the US that you can topple the goverment in case of tyranny? If that's the case, shouldn't you have all kinds of weapons, like land mines, machine guns, anti-tank, anti-aircraft, EMP ...
Because if the revolution was today, the British sure would have all those kind of things.
In all these discussions everyone has lost the real idea behind the current NY law and the proposed US Gun laws:
The Gun Control is "possession of" NOT "sale of"; no Grandfather clauses.
Remember to tell all your friends that under the proposed Obama gun control... any one who ever served in the military will be a criminal if he or she has any of the typical souvenirs. (armor piecing bullet, high cap magazine, etc.; I have seen these in that "welded junk" art.)
At least 60 Million registered law abiding citizens today become Criminals under the proposed law.
The 35 Million Criminals and Ex-Criminal of course still stay criminals. And do not care they are breaking another law.
Anyone who ever bought military surplus ammo is a Criminal (if any is still loaded.)
The New state of New York gun laws violate ex post facto laws. If you follow the constitution (not the second amendment part) our forefathers had the forethought to put wording into it our laws that made it illegal for the Federal or state government to be able to hold you criminally liable for items that were legal at the time purchased and then illegal after the fact. Therefore the state of New York is violating the civil rights of anyone who lives in that state.
...that none of the items on your list requires you to demonstrate an ability to safely operate that M16, or even have eyesight good enough that you don't mistake a brown couch for a sneaky buffalo that's broken into your home to steal your TV. Where is the harm in requiring someone to step up and take personal responsibility to prove they have the ability, skill, and knowledge to operate dangerous equipment safely?
Reducing the number of "guns freely available" (used in a general sense) will reduce the amount of gun-related (used in a general sense) violence. It's simple statistics, good, bad, left, right, whatever. And it's specific. Fewer guns at hand means fewer incidents where someone picks up a gun in a heated moment *because the gun is there* and shoots someone else with it. Fewer accidents *because the gun is there* will happen. This is math, not politics.
If you're looking at "why the 2nd" it's because the "tools" are the most protected elements of the whole deal, rather than the actual citizens. My uterus is more regulated than the "tools" used in the 2nd. We have individual responsibilities when it comes to Free Speech (not allowed to say "fire" in a crowded theater), voting (provide proof of residence and citizenship), assembling (peaceful, and you sometimes need a permit), press (you get in trouble for printing lies, although that one seems to be eroding under the "it was editorial/an infomercial" artful dodge these days), and religion (your right free exercise of your religion stops when it runs up against someone else's right to life/liberty/pursuit in that you can't stone people to death for apostasy or offer up unsuspecting co-eds as sacrifices for Great Cthulhu).
Yet even though the 2nd even states that "a well-regulated militia" is what predicates the citizen's right to keep and bear arms, there is a powerful force actively working to erase the whole idea of regulation of any sort, even if it's just to demonstrate you have the personal responsibility to operate said tools without infringing on some other citizen's "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." And the mere mention of maybe having some of that personal responsibility turns people hysterical.
It's not just in the wake of a tragedy that this happens, either. The difference is that the tragedy brings to light a situation that's been successfully suppressed up until tragedies like Newtown happen and people are shocked enough to break out of the "these are not the droids you're looking for" hand-waving that the Powers That Be regularly engage in.
I think nitpicking down to the type of gun or the type of ammo is a bit of a distraction in that it focuses on the minutia of what is a conceptual problem. Although, for the record, if you need 30 high-speed rounds to hit your target, maybe that makes its own case for the whole "demonstrate that you know how to use your tool" thing. Either that, or you need to sign up for Stormtrooper duty.
Semiautomatic rifles, in general, are useless for self-defense (can't carry them around), marginally useful for home defense (if you hear an intruder in your house, you'll probably grab the shotgun or the Glock and leave your auto-loading Winchester or even your AR-15 with a 10-round clip). And for hunting, they are at best a mere convenience and at worst an equalizer for shitty shots, unfair weaponry that turns a hunting from a respectable pastime into a shot-happy mess.
Semiautos, of all sorts, serve their true purpose in combat/defense (as opposed to hunting), where there are multiple targets and the high stakes of hitting the target justify taking as many shots as rapidly as necessary. And rifles are good for aiming, especially longer distances; at short distance aim is easier and quicker targeting is at a premium. Putting these facts together, semiauto rifles serve their highest use in killing people at distance, say more than 50ft. That makes semiauto rifles fundamentally weapons of attack: from sniping to full-on onslaughts; self- and home-defense, by contrast, generally take place at close quarters.
We could ban semiautomatic rifles entirely and not significantly arm the sport of hunting or the right to self-defense. We should do that.