NY Gov Gun Laws...

[1ASU78]

That's exactly what I'm saying.
I guess the writers of the Constitution were crazy too...

The writers of the constitution were talking about single shot muskets. Nothing more. To infur that the some of the smartest men in our country's history would have allowed assault type weapons is just silly.

Why would anyone need a gun with more than 7 rounds? I say make all guns illegal except those used for hunting. No assault weapons, no handguns

What they were talking about is citizens being able to maintain a free state. What type of guns are used for hunting only?

[alabamapitts]

Ted Pope ‏@Ted_Pope

Stone Age Bumper Sticker: You will have to pry my Blowgun from my cold dead lips.

[bcoach]

Obama's executive orders can only pertain to existing laws. Instead of jumping the gun with these executive orders, which will basically change nothing, he should express leadership and try to work with congress on something meaningful. He is more interested in putting on a show for the cameras by using children as props than actually getting something done. Every move he makes is made only because he perceives it will strengthen his legacy and help him in the next election cycle.

[alabamapitts]

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-th ... ve-slavery

[Yosef84]

That's exactly what I'm saying.
I guess the writers of the Constitution were crazy too...

The writers of the constitution were talking about single shot muskets. Nothing more. To infur that the some of the smartest men in our country's history would have allowed assault type weapons is just silly.

Why would anyone need a gun with more than 7 rounds? I say make all guns illegal except those used for hunting. No assault weapons, no handguns

Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion, but this is pretty rediculous. Just my opinion, of course.

The constitutions reference to bearing arms might have been written with muskets in mind, but that was the military standard of that time as well. If a person wants to call the constitution "obsolete" on that basis, they had better be careful what door they are opening. There are a lot of "rights" included in that document that I'm not ready to surrender. The intent of the 2nd amendment was in fact addressing, not only the right to defend one's home and family but the right to oppose a tyrannical government. I honestly don't see that as an eminent threat, but on the other hand, did any of the other nations who were taken over by tyrants see it coming?

The trend in this country where a certain group does not approve of or see the value in something, and therefore wants to dictate it's prohibition is not a positive trend. For the record, it seems to be happening on both sides of the aisle.

[Watauga72]

This topic is so fraught with emotion I hesitate to wade in, but what the heck.

The founding fathers were very leery of a standing army, as they saw the history of tyrants using military power against their own citizens. The 2nd amendment addressed this issue by guaranteeing that citizens would retain arms in order to serve in militias that would be assembled in times of need/emergency. The right for citizens to retain arms also could serve as an antidote to tyranny, but I'm afraid that the creation of a permanent standing military and the arms industry in this country may have made this anachronistic.

There are already restrictions on what kind of arms we can own, where they can be carried, and under what circumstances they can be used. Really don't have an issue with magazine limitations and background checks, as neither of these negate the ability to own a firearm, just limits the number of bullets that can be discharged before reloading. FYI, when I was young I owned a pump 12 guage shotgun that had a capacity of 6 rounds. Back in the '60's this gun had to be altered such that it's capacity was limited, by law, to 3 rounds...this was in North Carolina. Really don't recall a lot of discussion about the government threatening 2nd amendment rights.

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01 ... diana?lite

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/2 ... 16424.html

[AppGrad1]

Just wondering if all the media attention on ar's has any influence on this stuff.
We all know about copy cat murders.
I'd bet 80 percent of people never heard of an ar until this last shooting and media coverage.
I'm not excusing it just saying the media sure makes this look "sexy" for crazed kids...

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

AppGrad1, have you had a chance to find out all the times the gov't has come after us average joe citizens? I have listed a few events where citizen has gone after citizen just recently, and can dig some more. Maybe you can prove me wrong with some evidence that we have more to worry about from the Gov't than a fellow citizen killing someone with a gun. I have not heard back on any numbers or such from you and was curious if you found anything yet. I was able to find some things that have happened citizen-on-citizen since my post from a few days ago. Yes, it may be a copy cat situation, but that does not make the situation any less deadly. You can have a few more days or course, but my gut, sadly, tells me that while you are trying to find some evidence of the gov't trying to come after us there will be a few more events such as the above.

I'll touch base again in a few days, or when I find another situation like the above.

[AppGrad1]

Ya know, I stopped doing homework assignments when I left ASU.
Are you trying to make a point with me saying that for some reason I think the government comes after citizens more than citizen murders????
I think we all know this. What is your point?

My point is:
I'm not in favor of restrictions on guns and magazines. It will not deter crimes.
Taking away even some rights opens the door for other rights to be taken away.
Question: Will the government give us our AR's and magazines back if they find out these killings didn't stop? The answer is of course not.

I will fight it tooth and nail. I write my Senators weekly and express my concerns.

[Kgfish]

Bad and or sick people do bad things and nothing will deter them. It is extremely hard to legislate morality. The more emphasis and pressure put on guns the more mass violence we see. I do not favor banning the sale of any type of weapon that uses a bullet but the process to obtain permits should be extremely thorough. They may want to, but nobody needs to buy a gun in short order. If so they need police protection.

[appdaze]

It is extremely hard to legislate morality.

Don't tell the fundamentals....

[JCline0429]

Bad and or sick people do bad things and nothing will deter them. It is extremely hard to legislate morality. The more emphasis and pressure put on guns the more mass violence we see. I do not favor banning the sale of any type of weapon that uses a bullet but the process to obtain permits should be extremely thorough. They may want to, but nobody needs to buy a gun in short order. If so they need police protection.

You're right that it is hard to legislate morality but the government constantly legislates immorality.

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

Ya know, I stopped doing homework assignments when I left ASU.
Are you trying to make a point with me saying that for some reason I think the government comes after citizens more than citizen murders????
I think we all know this. What is your point?

My point is:
I'm not in favor of restrictions on guns and magazines. It will not deter crimes.
Taking away even some rights opens the door for other rights to be taken away.
Question: Will the government give us our AR's and magazines back if they find out these killings didn't stop? The answer is of course not.

I will fight it tooth and nail. I write my Senators weekly and express my concerns.

I had a nice reply to this and for some reason it did not post. I guess I did not hit submit. Anyways I send something later.... but while you wait from today's news.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/2 ... 27806.html

[Watauga72]

No one seems to have any problems with the government regulatng the ability to drive a vehicle, including requirements to pass tests in order to get a license to operate a vehicle, and to have proof of insurance. Less is required to buy a weapon? I have no problem with restrictions on types ofweapons and size of magazines. To argue otherwise would, logically, allow private citizens to own any type of firearm, including rpg's and shoulder fired rockets, among other military type weapons.

[AppinVA]

No one seems to have any problems with the government regulatng the ability to drive a vehicle, including requirements to pass tests in order to get a license to operate a vehicle, and to have proof of insurance. Less is required to buy a weapon? I have no problem with restrictions on types ofweapons and size of magazines. To argue otherwise would, logically, allow private citizens to own any type of firearm, including rpg's and shoulder fired rockets, among other military type weapons.

You know, you could argue that the citizenry having equal firepower to the government is in the spirit of the second amendment.

[Watauga72]

No one seems to have any problems with the government regulatng the ability to drive a vehicle, including requirements to pass tests in order to get a license to operate a vehicle, and to have proof of insurance. Less is required to buy a weapon? I have no problem with restrictions on types ofweapons and size of magazines. To argue otherwise would, logically, allow private citizens to own any type of firearm, including rpg's and shoulder fired rockets, among other military type weapons.

You know, you could argue that the citizenry having equal firepower to the government is in the spirit of the second amendment.

Perhaps, but more precisely, at the time the constitution was written an armed citizeny was the firepower of the government. Those who created the constitution had a great aversion to standing armies, believing that political leaders would be too tempted to employ such in military adventurism as well as against their own citizens.

[Kgfish]

It is extremely hard to legislate morality.

Don't tell the fundamentals....

I''m pretty darn fundamental, some say right of right, yet in many ways lean towards the Libertarian. Judging by your comment I am assuming you are fairly liberal. I find it interesting liberals say they stand for freedom and the fundamentalist stand in the way of it. Liberals claim not being able to chose who they can marry or the ability to destroy a living fetus restricts their freedoms. They also want the government fund medical research and provide (free of charge) a cure for disease that was initially totally lifestyle behavior driven. They claim those are their rights as Americans. Liberals want it both ways and obviously stand in the way of many freedoms for others. They want to regulate the type of cars we drive, the energy we use, where our kids go to school, the types of foods we eat or drink and whether or not we can own certain fire arms. Those are clearly restrictions to freedoms of law abiding citizens. They just cleverly attempt to disguise it in terms of what is best for the environment and everyone in general in order to gain support from the segment of the American people who are poorly educated on those subjects.

[AppinVA]

No one seems to have any problems with the government regulatng the ability to drive a vehicle, including requirements to pass tests in order to get a license to operate a vehicle, and to have proof of insurance. Less is required to buy a weapon? I have no problem with restrictions on types ofweapons and size of magazines. To argue otherwise would, logically, allow private citizens to own any type of firearm, including rpg's and shoulder fired rockets, among other military type weapons.

You know, you could argue that the citizenry having equal firepower to the government is in the spirit of the second amendment.

Perhaps, but more precisely, at the time the constitution was written an armed citizeny was the firepower of the government. Those who created the constitution had a great aversion to standing armies, believing that political leaders would be too tempted to employ such in military adventurism as well as against their own citizens.

Yes. The entire Bill of Rights is about limiting the power and the possibility of an abusive government (cough, Patriot Act, cough) Look, I am in no way advocating that I should be able to go down to Bass Pro Shops and pick up a F15 to pull behind my truck and go upstairs to grab a shoulder-fired rocket launcher, but I do state that we need to be cautious in surrendering our freedoms. The views of the framers of the Constitution were correct in that regard.