TakeYouToTasker Posted January 15, 2013 Posted January 15, 2013 FromDemocrat Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid; DON’T EXPECT AN ASSAULT WEAPON BAN. “The Second Amendment is something that was adhered to by Hubert Humphrey, John Kennedy,” Reid said. “So I don’t think anyone wants to diminish the Second Amendment, but I think everyone should just take a deep breath and realize where we are and where we need to go. “We have too much violence in our society, and it’s not just from guns. It’s from a lot of stuff. and i think we should take a look at TV, movies, video games and weapons. And I hope that everyone will just be careful and cautious.” Oh, I think plenty of people want to diminish the Second Amendment. But that’s a good reminder that support in the Democratic Party used to be broader. So, to paraphrase: "No, people do not kill people; guns kill people. And not only do guns kill people but pictures of guns also kill people. We all need to be very afraid of pictures of guns."
TheMadCap Posted January 15, 2013 Posted January 15, 2013 FromDemocrat Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid; DON’T EXPECT AN ASSAULT WEAPON BAN. “The Second Amendment is something that was adhered to by Hubert Humphrey, John Kennedy,” Reid said. “So I don’t think anyone wants to diminish the Second Amendment, but I think everyone should just take a deep breath and realize where we are and where we need to go. “We have too much violence in our society, and it’s not just from guns. It’s from a lot of stuff. and i think we should take a look at TV, movies, video games and weapons. And I hope that everyone will just be careful and cautious.” Oh, I think plenty of people want to diminish the Second Amendment. But that’s a good reminder that support in the Democratic Party used to be broader. . Wow, I agree with Harry? The end times are nigh...
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted January 15, 2013 Posted January 15, 2013 Wow! I cannot believe that they are banning any magazine over 7 rounds. Virtually every single pistol has at least a 10 round magazine. I read in another article that there is a provision that states any "high capacity" magazines will need to be sold out of state within a year. So I actually have to sell all the magazines that I spent a lot of $ on to someone outside NY or I become a criminal? They don't even make a magazine that holds less than ten rounds for the pistols I own. Hell, the 22cal revolver that I own holds ten rounds! this is infuriating!
D521646 Posted January 15, 2013 Posted January 15, 2013 I don't believe it's retroactive, so the law applies to new gun ownership, however, I don't know how a law enforcement officer would know the difference? All I say is from my cold dead hands will I give up my right to protect my family. Tim-
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted January 15, 2013 Posted January 15, 2013 I don't believe it's retroactive, so the law applies to new gun ownership, however, I don't know how a law enforcement officer would know the difference? All I say is from my cold dead hands will I give up my right to protect my family. Tim- Actually it looks like the magazine ban would not grandfather anyone in. Ammunition magazines would be restricted to seven bullets, from the current 10, and current owners of higher-capacity magazines would have a year to sell them out of state. An owner caught at home with eight or more bullets in a magazine could face a misdemeanor charge. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/15/bill-called-toughest-gun-control-package-in-nation-passed-by-new-york-state/
IDBillzFan Posted January 15, 2013 Posted January 15, 2013 I don't know why all you guys have your panties in a wad. It's pretty clear that gun control laws are a very effective way to cut down on the number of people killed by a gun. Just look at Chicago.
dayman Posted January 15, 2013 Posted January 15, 2013 http://www.nytimes.c...Y&ei=5065&_r=1 Perhaps it is time to refresh the tree of liberty with the blood of those who deny us our 2nd amendment rights? If they come door to door taking guns, I would hope that people would defend their rights with their lives. Whether you like it or not...it's pretty retarded to go around talking about giving up your life and killing yourself and potentially a police officer...
Gene Frenkle Posted January 15, 2013 Posted January 15, 2013 Whether you like it or not...it's pretty retarded to go around talking about giving up your life and killing yourself and potentially a police officer... When the patriotic rhetoric reaches this level, there's no room for rational thought. Gotta let these overly-emotional gun folks calm down for 3-5 days. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will be able to compensate for their "shortcomings". Protect the family! Cold dead hands! Wolverines!
Joe Miner Posted January 15, 2013 Posted January 15, 2013 (edited) Has anyone actually counted up the laws that were broken in the Newton shooting? Just off the top of my head in order to commit the murders at the school there was first: Murder of his mother Theft of her guns Illegal/unlicensed possesion of firearms Illegal transportation of firearms Illegal possession of guns on school property likely trespassing on school property Breaking and entering of the school Anything else I'm missing? But these extra laws are definitely needed. Look at all those lives we lose each year because of bayonet lugs on firearms, and the collapsible stocks on AR15's are generally the most dangerous parts of the gun. Edited January 15, 2013 by Joe Miner
Just Jack Posted January 15, 2013 Posted January 15, 2013 Actually it looks like the magazine ban would not grandfather anyone in. Ammunition magazines would be restricted to seven bullets, from the current 10, and current owners of higher-capacity magazines would have a year to sell them out of state. An owner caught at home with eight or more bullets in a magazine could face a misdemeanor charge. http://www.foxnews.c...new-york-state/ The way I read it is any magazine that you currently own over 10 rounds needs to be sold/gotten rid of. If you have a 10 round mag, you can keep it as long as you don't load more than 7 bullets in it.
B-Man Posted January 15, 2013 Posted January 15, 2013 The way I read it is any magazine that you currently own over 10 rounds needs to be sold/gotten rid of. If you have a 10 round mag, you can keep it as long as you don't load more than 7 bullets in it. How Many Bullets Are Enough? Gun control advocates, in their infinite wisdom, seem to think they have the definitive answer to this question. The answer is "less than ten." Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York is seeking extensive gun control legislation to "tighten the assault weapons ban" and "ban all large-capacity gun clips." To these ends, he addressed the gun "extremists" by quipping, "It's simple -- no one hunts with an assault rifle. No one needs ten bullets to kill a deer." The first time I remember being introduced to this feeble (yet somehow, incredibly persistent) argument for gun control was while watching an Eddie Murphy movie called The Distinguished Gentleman as a kid. In the film, Eddie Murphy's character is a con artist who scams his way into a vacant seat in Congress. He initially chums up to the House chairman of the energy committee, who is your stereotypical greedy, right-wing, oil-sucking politician that Hollywood loves to portray. He's anti-gay, anti-environment, anti-cancer prevention, and he also happens to be in bed with (you guessed it!) the pro-gun lobby. So he and Eddie Murphy go duck hunting with military-grade rifles to promote such weapons' recreational use. The whole thing is purposefully absurd, with Eddie Murphy puzzling over these gun nuts firing hundreds of rounds in the air only to have one duck fall from the sky, which Eddie Murphy suggests "must've had a heart attack." The implication is simple. Like Cuomo, the filmmakers expect the people watching to assume that the gun control debate centers on whether or not weapons capable of delivering large numbers of rounds have a legitimate recreational use. And if they do not have such utility, there is simply no need for Americans to have access to them. This argument is entirely reliant on the hope that the electorate will never delve past this assumption. It requires that a large number of Americans be so unbearably ignorant and aloof that they fail to recognize that a firearm's recreational use has absolutely nothing to do with its usefulness in the context of the most obvious enumeration of our rights as Americans -- the Bill of Rights. Our Founders had very specific intentions in regard to firearms and the protection of the people's right to own them. And the intent had little, if anything, to do with hunting or sport. The more practical use of guns is to kill people, should that unpleasant need arise. Consider Thomas Jefferson's reasoning for why the citizenry must have firearms: "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." Thomas Jefferson is not known to be a careless author. This statement clearly shows our Founders' resolve in keeping the public armed. Neither was James Madison, principal author of the Bill of Rights. And neither are the chosen words of the Second Amendment careless in conveying this message: "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." Notably absent is any specificity about hunting or killing game. Notably present is specificity about what and whose rights must not be infringed. It is the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" that shall not be infringed. The "well-regulated militia" is admittedly necessary, but it is not the militia's right that is specifically protected. It is the "people" whose right is specifically protected, because our founders understood that to preserve our liberties, we must have the ability to take up arms against our rulers. {snip} Governor Cuomo is engaging in obvious political gamesmanship, and nothing about it is honest. After all, if the discussion were truly honest, the question to be answered would never have been about how many bullets it takes to kill a deer. It would be about how many bullets it takes for a free man to defend against those people who would rob him of life, liberty, or property. I don't know the answer to that question. But I do know that the number is a great deal more than nine, and that we should be wary about a government so eager to decide for us what that number should be. http://www.americant...l#ixzz2I4FGkCkm
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 15, 2013 Posted January 15, 2013 When the patriotic rhetoric reaches this level, there's no room for rational thought. Gotta let these overly-emotional gun folks calm down for 3-5 days. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will be able to compensate for their "shortcomings". Protect the family! Cold dead hands! Wolverines! As I told you before, good for you and your law. Now come enforce it by visiting gun violence apon me and my family. I promise to make a few of your children fatherless as a reward for your reckless tyranny.
Gary M Posted January 15, 2013 Posted January 15, 2013 When the patriotic rhetoric reaches this level, there's no room for rational thought. Gotta let these overly-emotional gun folks calm down for 3-5 days. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will be able to compensate for their "shortcomings". Protect the family! Cold dead hands! Wolverines! Tell that to Patrick Henry.
B-Man Posted January 15, 2013 Posted January 15, 2013 As I told you before, good for you and your law. Now come enforce it by visiting gun violence apon me and my family. I promise to make a few of your children fatherless as a reward for your reckless tyranny. You need one of these TYTT,
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 15, 2013 Posted January 15, 2013 You need one of these TYTT, No, when you advertise the facists just bring more people with bigger guns to infringe apon your rights.
3rdnlng Posted January 15, 2013 Posted January 15, 2013 When the patriotic rhetoric reaches this level, there's no room for rational thought. Gotta let these overly-emotional gun folks calm down for 3-5 days. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will be able to compensate for their "shortcomings". Protect the family! Cold dead hands! Wolverines! Finkle, what other constitutional rights would you and SameOldBull like to change? Maybe we could compromise and agree that guns can be used for "sudden impact, after the fact abortions".
sodbuster Posted January 15, 2013 Posted January 15, 2013 meanwhile, in the people's republic of new york...
section122 Posted January 15, 2013 Posted January 15, 2013 As I told you before, good for you and your law. Now come enforce it by visiting gun violence apon me and my family. I promise to make a few of your children fatherless as a reward for your reckless tyranny. Holy sheet! I am both disgusted and scared by your p.o.v. on this topic. I don't think you have to worry about the cops kicking your door down to come get your guns. The fact that you think this concerns me. The right to bear arms was very very important in the Bill of Rights. It help insure protection from invading countries or our own government. This was the late 1700's. Since then the U.S. Military has become the world's best, if they want to come take over your house guess what they will. However why in the world would they ever do that? Do you think another country will invade us? Our military would handle that - not you with your mini arsenal. I'm not even anti gun but your reasoning is terrible. You want to say it is to protect your family from robbers etc. fine with me and I have no issue with you. Threaten and try to reason murdering police officers?!?! This line of thinking hurts your cause waaaayyyyy more than it helps... No, when you advertise the facists just bring more people with bigger guns to infringe apon your rights. I let it slide the first time but if you're the smartest man in the room it's upon not apon
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 15, 2013 Posted January 15, 2013 (edited) Holy sheet! I am both disgusted and scared by your p.o.v. on this topic. I don't think you have to worry about the cops kicking your door down to come get your guns. The fact that you think this concerns me. The right to bear arms was very very important in the Bill of Rights. It help insure protection from invading countries or our own government. This was the late 1700's. Since then the U.S. Military has become the world's best, if they want to come take over your house guess what they will. However why in the world would they ever do that? Do you think another country will invade us? Our military would handle that - not you with your mini arsenal. I'm not even anti gun but your reasoning is terrible. You want to say it is to protect your family from robbers etc. fine with me and I have no issue with you. Threaten and try to reason murdering police officers?!?! This line of thinking hurts your cause waaaayyyyy more than it helps... They cease to be police officers when they visit unjust force upon otherwise peaceful citizens. A badge is not licence to suspend the rights of the citizen; nor is an unjust law reasonable cause for a law enforcement officer to act as the hand of tyranny. Police officers have the right, and the choice, to not enforce these laws. Furthermore, their jobs are not more important than the rights of the citizens which they took an oath to protect. Armed men coming to my door to take what is mine will be met with a response approriate to their presence. Edited January 16, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker
3rdnlng Posted January 15, 2013 Posted January 15, 2013 Holy sheet! I am both disgusted and scared by your p.o.v. on this topic. I don't think you have to worry about the cops kicking your door down to come get your guns. The fact that you think this concerns me. The right to bear arms was very very important in the Bill of Rights. It help insure protection from invading countries or our own government. This was the late 1700's. Since then the U.S. Military has become the world's best, if they want to come take over your house guess what they will. However why in the world would they ever do that? Do you think another country will invade us? Our military would handle that - not you with your mini arsenal. I'm not even anti gun but your reasoning is terrible. You want to say it is to protect your family from robbers etc. fine with me and I have no issue with you. Threaten and try to reason murdering police officers?!?! This line of thinking hurts your cause waaaayyyyy more than it helps... I let it slide the first time but if you're the smartest man in the room it's upon not apon Emperor Hirohito said he would not attack America because he knew Americans had guns and knew how to use them... that there was "a gun behind every blade of grass."
Recommended Posts