NY Gov Gun Laws...

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

cant keep up with shootings? try keeping up with car deaths

And we regulate cars a good bit both for environmental reasons and safety. Without those regs the air would be even more unhealthy and we would have more deaths from the secondary effects of cars. The safety regs have saved many lives as well. Maybe the gun industry could learn a thing or two.

If u think the gun industry isn't regulated then your crazy... Also thoes same regulations on cars are why we use ethanol which is worse for the environment and our cars

I know the gun industry is regulated... just not enough by my standards. I think there is room to still honor the 2nd amendment and tighten up on how powerful, fast a gun can be. I would not mind if we handled gun sells like we handle hard liquor - though maybe not at the same store.

And yes, some regulations can have slight negative effects, but overall our air, water, and ground is cleaner than it was and more importantly would be if the environmental regs and laws were not in place. Getting rid of lead in gas was forced and we are better off now because that happened. Same with paint and lead. Asbestos gone...overall a positive. Asbestos was a good insulator, and still would be, except it is bad for our health. Finally I think, and if I am wrong let me know, but I think the ethanol is more about farm policy and the corn states than environmental policy. We can now argue farm policy but the ethanol situation is not environmental in whole or even in a small part.

Edit: spelling and a missing word.

[AppGrad1]

Yea my bad. Don't know where the 2 year thing came up. I think I watched the Patriot and it had 2 years of commercials and I got it mixed up.

[Watauga72]

Yea my bad. Don't know where the 2 year thing came up. I think I watched the Patriot and it had 2 years of commercials and I got it mixed up.

LOL!!! Yes, it did seem like it lasted as long as the war. Did that movie seem like a remake of Braveheart without kilts and accents?

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/0 ... 02074.html

Update since Sandy Hook.

[appst89]

I just wonder if the people who are so willing to voluntarily give up the liberties they don't particularly like are going to be so accommodating when the next one to be taken is one they hold dear?

[AppinVA]

The 2nd amendment neither states nor implies that private citizens should have weapons equal to those of the government, and no court has ruled as such. This is a ludicrous claim. Making stupid statements like that undermines your argument.

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.

Where does it say what kind of weapons can we have? I always thought "shall not be infringed" as meaning "cannot be infringed", not "well, can be infringed a little". Pretty clear to me.
And, when the 2nd amend was written the people just finished a 2 year war with a government. It was written so that the people can defend themselves against a/their government if needed. How can the people possible defend themselves if the government takes away their guns and only gives them 7 round magazines?
Once again, whittling away at what the Constitution says and means...
I don't think there could possible be any other meaning to the 2nd. Pretty clear to me.

Two year war??? How about an 8 year war against the Brits

Constitution was written by men who distrusted a strong central government and did not want a standing national army. They saw themselves more as Virginians or New Yorkers than Americans. The reason the amendment begins with a statement relating to militias is that they saw the militias as the best alternative to a standing army.

It clearly states that citizens have the right to bear arms. It also ties this back to a well regulated militia, which means that some entity should regulate these. Good luck finding any legal scholar supporting a position that says the state has no ability to regulate the types of weapons available to non-military personnel.

As a former fetus, I feel the need to point out that "regulated" back in the days of the Bill of Rights meant maintained or supplied. A well maintained malitia...A well supplied malitia...

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

I just wonder if the people who are so willing to voluntarily give up the liberties they don't particularyl like are going to be so accommodating when the next one to be taken is one they hold dear?

That is one reason I would not care to end all gun sales. We do have a 2nd amendment, and I do want to respect those rights as much as possible. It is not as important to me as others, and I realize that. But I do think there is some reason that it is Amendment Number 2 to the freedoms mentioned in Amendment Number 1. I might not like what you have to say, nor you like what I have to say, but at the end of the day there is nothing I can say that will directly kill you. If you can think of some phrase so shocking, so vile, that a person that hears those words uttered will drop dead then tell me (of course in writing, don't say it to me.) A bullet passing through my brain or other vital organs, odds-are is going to do me in.

But even with speech we have limits. One has to get permits. One can be cordoned off in a "free-speech" zone, which is very 1984-ish in its very description. I don't like that stuff either. The problem with the pro-"any gun that I desire should be allowed" folks is just that. We are seeing a slow slippage of rights away from us as we turn more into a corporatist-state. Though I am sure there are some folks that really do take the Bill of rights to hart (The ACLU is pretty good here.) I don't see many in the pro-gun side of the aisle getting worked up about other issues such as Internet privacy, "free-speech" zones. etc. I think the pro-gun lobby is barking up the wrong tree in worrying about losing rights.

I'll try and express my opinion on this as clear as I can, without taking 30 minutes to type it out.. Yes, I do think we are seeing an erosion of basic rights. That is across the board, and coming from many different directions. Some from the gov't and some from the corporate world. Some corporations do some big work with SLAP lawsuits to shut up dissent. However, the fear that some have that the gov't is going to come at us with guns-ablazing is a bit on the paranoid side. One, the gov't has so much fire power even a large clip on a gun will not stop the gov't. So that is a moot argument. Secondly, as long we keep enough decent people in the military that are not just "yes" men we don't have that to worry about, and I don't live in fear of a military coup. That is one reason we should all be supporting Bradley Manning. If we have enough of these type soldiers I don't think we would have to worry about the gov't turning on us, b/c there would be enough soldiers to just say no, that is wrong, I am not going after a fellow citizen. We should also be very concerned about Gitmo. We also have a firm tradition that the top Defense people are civilians, or at least retired military. We also have some laws and legal traditions (Posse Comitatus) that have mostly held up in modern times. Like any law, there are some vague words in that Act that I would prefer not be in the law and laws connected to it. But overall it is a nice check and balance to the military. Finally, and the most important point as it relates to the 2nd amendment, why worry about the gov't when we are killing each other in such large numbers.

Of course all of this is coming from the angle for those that feel the 2nd Amendment is there to keep the gov't in check from invading homes and such. For those that want a gun to "protect" themselves from a burglar then once again I ask, why would you need a 30-round clip for that or to go hunting? I don't remember stating anything that would take away the right to have a gun that could stop a deer or a home intruder, assuming the owner has some reasonable level of mental stability.

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opini ... wanted=all&

This bothers me more than not having a 30 round magazine.

[AppGrad1]

The 2nd amend says noting about having guns for shooting deer/hunting/sport. It's all about citizens defending themselves against government. That's why we need 30 round mags.
People can spin this all they want and can say we are killing each other, why these guns, why those guns, why these mags, etc. They can also say the government is so big the people wouldn't have a chance. They can also say a 30 round mag won't do any good against the government.
Still, the 2nd amend says people should have weapons to defend itself against government if needed. There is no way to spin this, period. IMO

Some say the ones who wrote the Constitution had no vision about today's weapons. I just can't agree with that statement. They had to know of wars with arrowheads, sticks, rocks, bow and arrows, cannons and now muskets. Did they think this was the end of weapon inventions? Were they that dumb as to think improvements would halt with the musket? I say bull. Are we dumb enough today to think that Nuclear weapons, smart bombs etc is all that will ever be? There are now space weapons and more technology concerning this area.
Did we think after WWI that we could only use semi auto rifles, cannons etc? No, we invented the Atomic Bomb? Why would we ever think those men would never have thought about the evolution of weapons?
Does everyone think they meant for the citizens to keep muskets and the government to evolve into newer weapons depriving citizens from defending themselves? I just can't buy it.

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

Someone that thinks a 30 round magazine or a stockpile of them, is going to stop a gov't in this day and age is either delusional or very uneducated on even the basic fire power of a tank or plane. At the same time said person is being played for a fool by being distracted over issues that can be solved without guns, and the need for violence. But it does require one to look at more than one issue at a time, and see a bigger picture. That can be hard for some people that get caught up in single-issue ideas.

[AppGrad1]

Someone that thinks a 30 round magazine or a stockpile of them, is going to stop a gov't in this day and age is either delusional or very uneducated on even the basic fire power of a tank or plane. At the same time said person is being played for a fool by being distracted over issues that can be solved without guns, and the need for violence. But it does require one to look at more than one issue at a time, and see a bigger picture. That can be hard for some people that get caught up in single-issue ideas.

"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."
Na, I have no idea what a plane can do nor do I have a clue what a tank can do. I guess I'm delusional and uneducated. I am, however, smart enough that I can read and read very well unlike some people...

[appdaze]

This is why citizens dont get tanks to drive to work. How many of you remember this incident?

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

Someone that thinks a 30 round magazine or a stockpile of them, is going to stop a gov't in this day and age is either delusional or very uneducated on even the basic fire power of a tank or plane. At the same time said person is being played for a fool by being distracted over issues that can be solved without guns, and the need for violence. But it does require one to look at more than one issue at a time, and see a bigger picture. That can be hard for some people that get caught up in single-issue ideas.

"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."
Na, I have no idea what a plane can do nor do I have a clue what a tank can do. I guess I'm delusional and uneducated. I am, however, smart enough that I can read and read very well unlike some people...

If is was so clear cut I doubt the Supreme Court would even bother to take on cases involving gun rights. The 2nd Amendment does not say "any" nor "all available." Being stopped from certain arms does not infringe your rights to keep and bear arms. Just like my freedom of speech can be tempered by time of day, location, and to some extent what I say. If I was outside a person's home at 3 am leading a protest, I would have a hard time not being arrested. Maybe he was the CEO of some corporation I did not care for. I would most likely get arrested for disturbing the peace, even if my speech is very political by its nature. If I did this between the hours of 9-5 I might not be, and if I were arrested I would have a much better chance of getting the charges dropped or even suing the gov't officials for the actions they took. The point is, there are limits, and I don't mean the proverbial yelling fire in a theater.

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

Someone that thinks a 30 round magazine or a stockpile of them, is going to stop a gov't in this day and age is either delusional or very uneducated on even the basic fire power of a tank or plane. At the same time said person is being played for a fool by being distracted over issues that can be solved without guns, and the need for violence. But it does require one to look at more than one issue at a time, and see a bigger picture. That can be hard for some people that get caught up in single-issue ideas.

"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."
Na, I have no idea what a plane can do nor do I have a clue what a tank can do. I guess I'm delusional and uneducated. I am, however, smart enough that I can read and read very well unlike some people...

Let me ask you something. You and I are going back and forth on this. I am going to keep posting about the deaths and you are going to keep on 2nd Amend this, 2nd Amend that. So here is my question. Do you think the chances that the gov't might make it a bit harder to purchase and own guns and clips such as used at Sandy Hook and other places is the biggest fear we have from the gov't?

Drones, free-speech zones, Torture and working at the very edges of the law to make it look legal, internet privacy, and I could go on, but all of that is secondary to having the ability to have a 30 round clip ready to go off in a few seconds in case the gov't comes after you.

[AppGrad1]

Someone that thinks a 30 round magazine or a stockpile of them, is going to stop a gov't in this day and age is either delusional or very uneducated on even the basic fire power of a tank or plane. At the same time said person is being played for a fool by being distracted over issues that can be solved without guns, and the need for violence. But it does require one to look at more than one issue at a time, and see a bigger picture. That can be hard for some people that get caught up in single-issue ideas.

"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."
Na, I have no idea what a plane can do nor do I have a clue what a tank can do. I guess I'm delusional and uneducated. I am, however, smart enough that I can read and read very well unlike some people...

Let me ask you something. You and I are going back and forth on this. I am going to keep posting about the deaths and you are going to keep on 2nd Amend this, 2nd Amend that. So here is my question. Do you think the chances that the gov't might make it a bit harder to purchase and own guns and clips such as used at Sandy Hook and other places is the biggest fear we have from the gov't?

Drones, free-speech zones, Torture and working at the very edges of the law to make it look legal, internet privacy, and I could go on, but all of that is secondary to having the ability to have a 30 round clip ready to go off in a few seconds in case the gov't comes after you.

I am not for giving up ANY rights per the Constitution.
If anyone thinks that stopping these 30 round mags or stopping these AR's will deter what happened at Sandy Hook is "delusional and uneducated" (as you say). I'll say it again, if ANYONE thinks this move will deter these type shootings are fooling themselves. It is nothing but political BS to act like something is being done. Crime statistics have shown this is not the case but yet we have a knee-jerk reaction politician who is doing just this. He bashed the NRA for talking about his kids and then paraded kids around his stage to further his agenda.
We may as well face it, guns are out there and there is no stopping it. Nothing will work.
Let me ask you a question as I've stated before. If 30 round mags and AR's are outlawed and killings like these continue would you be willing to give them back to the people because obviously it didn't stop the murders? I didn't think so...

[Watauga72]

It's absurd to think that those who wrote the 2 nd amendment foresaw 30+ round magazines and semi-automatic weapons. I agree that all citizens should have weapons equal to the government, only if we put in context of the 1700's and require that all guns are muzzle loaders and take a minute to reload. That is what the "founding fathers" had in mind.

[AppGrad1]

It's absurd to think that those who wrote the 2 nd amendment foresaw 30+ round magazines and semi-automatic weapons. I agree that all citizens should have weapons equal to the government, only if we put in context of the 1700's and require that all guns are muzzle loaders and take a minute to reload. That is what the "founding fathers" had in mind.

The 2nd amend was adopted in 1791. The first revolver was invented in 1814. It took 23 years to invent the revolver and it obviously was in the planning stages years before that. Many of our Founding Father's were still alive when this revolver was invented. Was this not the start of multiple bullets in weapons and they even witnessed it. How could they not have seen what was ahead?

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

Someone that thinks a 30 round magazine or a stockpile of them, is going to stop a gov't in this day and age is either delusional or very uneducated on even the basic fire power of a tank or plane. At the same time said person is being played for a fool by being distracted over issues that can be solved without guns, and the need for violence. But it does require one to look at more than one issue at a time, and see a bigger picture. That can be hard for some people that get caught up in single-issue ideas.

"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."
Na, I have no idea what a plane can do nor do I have a clue what a tank can do. I guess I'm delusional and uneducated. I am, however, smart enough that I can read and read very well unlike some people...

Let me ask you something. You and I are going back and forth on this. I am going to keep posting about the deaths and you are going to keep on 2nd Amend this, 2nd Amend that. So here is my question. Do you think the chances that the gov't might make it a bit harder to purchase and own guns and clips such as used at Sandy Hook and other places is the biggest fear we have from the gov't?

Drones, free-speech zones, Torture and working at the very edges of the law to make it look legal, internet privacy, and I could go on, but all of that is secondary to having the ability to have a 30 round clip ready to go off in a few seconds in case the gov't comes after you.

I am not for giving up ANY rights per the Constitution.
If anyone thinks that stopping these 30 round mags or stopping these AR's will deter what happened at Sandy Hook is "delusional and uneducated" (as you say). I'll say it again, if ANYONE thinks this move will deter these type shootings are fooling themselves. It is nothing but political BS to act like something is being done. Crime statistics have shown this is not the case but yet we have a knee-jerk reaction politician who is doing just this. He bashed the NRA for talking about his kids and then paraded kids around his stage to further his agenda.
We may as well face it, guns are out there and there is no stopping it. Nothing will work.
Let me ask you a question as I've stated before. If 30 round mags and AR's are outlawed and killings like these continue would you be willing to give them back to the people because obviously it didn't stop the murders? I didn't think so...

And you might think wrongly. These numbers do show something with access and the number of gun related deaths.

http://www.businessinsider.com/americas ... art-2013-1

No one really knows what would happen. However, looking at other countries does not prove your point, and it makes a strong case for gun control.

And please read this, paragraph 4

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Opinion/Com ... z2Jsdu2GzT

I am not really wanting to go as far as Australia did, but it speaks for itself at some level.

If you are not willing to give up any rights per the Constitution, then are you fighting as strongly for the other amendments? I don't know if you are a member of the NRA, but are you also a member of other groups that are fighting for the other 9 amendments.

[AppGrad1]

The US Department of Justice reports that approximately 60% of all adult firearm deaths are by suicide.
There are also gun deaths that are figured in many of these stats that are legal protection shootings and justifiable police shootings.

75% of murders are committed by pistols.
4% of murders are committed by rifles.
5% of murders are committed by shotguns.
16% of murders are committed by unspecified guns.

I cannot put my hand on it now but I read that 97.5% of gun murders are by criminals already in the system. Do you think these criminals will comply with new gun laws?

We both can pull stats to make our sides look the way we want it. The bottom line is if 75% of murders are committed by pistols then why else would the government go after certain rifles that only kill around 4% of the people? Looks political to me...

[AppGrad1]

Someone that thinks a 30 round magazine or a stockpile of them, is going to stop a gov't in this day and age is either delusional or very uneducated on even the basic fire power of a tank or plane. At the same time said person is being played for a fool by being distracted over issues that can be solved without guns, and the need for violence. But it does require one to look at more than one issue at a time, and see a bigger picture. That can be hard for some people that get caught up in single-issue ideas.

"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."
Na, I have no idea what a plane can do nor do I have a clue what a tank can do. I guess I'm delusional and uneducated. I am, however, smart enough that I can read and read very well unlike some people...

Let me ask you something. You and I are going back and forth on this. I am going to keep posting about the deaths and you are going to keep on 2nd Amend this, 2nd Amend that. So here is my question. Do you think the chances that the gov't might make it a bit harder to purchase and own guns and clips such as used at Sandy Hook and other places is the biggest fear we have from the gov't?

Drones, free-speech zones, Torture and working at the very edges of the law to make it look legal, internet privacy, and I could go on, but all of that is secondary to having the ability to have a 30 round clip ready to go off in a few seconds in case the gov't comes after you.

I am not for giving up ANY rights per the Constitution.
If anyone thinks that stopping these 30 round mags or stopping these AR's will deter what happened at Sandy Hook is "delusional and uneducated" (as you say). I'll say it again, if ANYONE thinks this move will deter these type shootings are fooling themselves. It is nothing but political BS to act like something is being done. Crime statistics have shown this is not the case but yet we have a knee-jerk reaction politician who is doing just this. He bashed the NRA for talking about his kids and then paraded kids around his stage to further his agenda.
We may as well face it, guns are out there and there is no stopping it. Nothing will work.
Let me ask you a question as I've stated before. If 30 round mags and AR's are outlawed and killings like these continue would you be willing to give them back to the people because obviously it didn't stop the murders? I didn't think so...

And you might think wrongly. These numbers do show something with access and the number of gun related deaths.

http://www.businessinsider.com/americas ... art-2013-1

No one really knows what would happen. However, looking at other countries does not prove your point, and it makes a strong case for gun control.

And please read this, paragraph 4

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Opinion/Com ... z2Jsdu2GzT

I am not really wanting to go as far as Australia did, but it speaks for itself at some level.

If you are not willing to give up any rights per the Constitution, then are you fighting as strongly for the other amendments? I don't know if you are a member of the NRA, but are you also a member of other groups that are fighting for the other 9 amendments.

I've done my part in support of some amendments. I had them posted but thought it should stay a private matter. I'd love to hear from your civic responsibilities on the amendments though.