NY Gov Gun Laws...

[Deano]

The US Constitution was written as a loose guideline for our Government and a Moral Society. The last 200 years our government both Federal and State have been making laws to deal with the degradation of our morality.
"Hey too many people are getting fat, lets outlaw large soft drinks, Hey too many people are committing murder, lets outlaw guns". We don't need more laws. Nothing about the recent shootings was legal. So creating more laws are going to do what? Only effect people who actually abide by the law.
I'm for stronger back ground checks and whatever will make our children safer, but to me what our President and our politicians are doing is just pushing a political agenda, and we seem to be happy in giving up our freedom. Again, this is a morality issue not a gun, knife, or any inanimate object issue.

You're right, the constitution is a framework outlining the republican form of government, delineating powers between branches and levels of government, and naming certain protected rights.

Those laws that "our government" has been making over the past 200 years have generally been done by elected officials, so we have only ourselves to blame for any political agenda being pushed.

I didn't vote for the guy so whatever agenda he is pushing is not part of me.

[Watauga72]

What president and politician did not have a political agenda?

Really curious, as it relates to the gun laws about which this topic was started, are you talking about the state of New York taking away freedoms, or are you expanding that to President Obama? If the latter, exactly which freedoms relating to guns are at risk?

[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.

[AppGrad1]

Who obeys laws? Law abiding citizens.
Who disobeys laws? Criminals

Seriously, what kind of laws will stop these shootings? The guns are out there already. Too late to do anything about guns. Limiting guns, magazines only limits it to law abiding citizens. The criminals don't care about breaking the laws limiting magazines or guns. How can anyone not see the political moves by our President to act like they are doing something that will work? How can educated people really think this will stop shootings?

I wrote my Senator about this issue and I received a letter back from him stating the issues we need to address.
1. Violent Movies
2. Violent Games
3. Mental Health
Seriously, Stallone's new movie out... "Bullet to the Head".
Did the theater shooter not wear at Batman outfit during this shooting?
Did the boy who killed his mother and sister not admit to watching Halloween 3 times and then acting it out by killing them?
But, let's get rid of certain guns and magazine limits and this will help deter shootings?

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

You are correct that changing the laws will not change the supply overnight, but over time there will be less high-powered type guns around. And why does a law-abiding citizen need a 30 round clip that can be delivered in seconds. Really, you need that? For what?

I do agree we need to address mental health. That is very true. Part of that needs to be some regs/laws/rules that keep guns away from folks that have mental issues. I do hope that the one, two, three list was not order of priority. If so, that senator is an idiot IMO, if he thinks we have more to worry about from a movie or a game (not that I am fond of this silly action movies) than the underlying sickness and the need to address mental health.

In the end, however a movie can't kill. A bullet flying through the air does, can, and will continue to kill.

[AppGrad1]

You are correct that changing the laws will not change the supply overnight, but over time there will be less high-powered type guns around. And why does a law-abiding citizen need a 30 round clip that can be delivered in seconds. Really, you need that? For what?

I do agree we need to address mental health. That is very true. Part of that needs to be some regs/laws/rules that keep guns away from folks that have mental issues. I do hope that the one, two, three list was not order of priority. If so, that senator is an idiot IMO, if he thinks we have more to worry about from a movie or a game (not that I am fond of this silly action movies) than the underlying sickness and the need to address mental health.

In the end, however a movie can't kill. A bullet flying through the air does, can, and will continue to kill.

The Senator did not list that order. You make some very good points but I have to disagree with something you said. A bullet does not kill either. People kill. A bullet sitting on a table has never killed anyone. That is not a cliche either...

[appdaze]

Violent movies games music...please....how about parents learn to be parents. Good parenting during the early ages has an immeasurable lasting affect on a child and this is where so many children suffer in our society.
If we go by people who fear the entertainment industry then I guess we need to outlaw those violent bands like the Beatles. Helter skelter anyone? Those filthy Brits planting the seeds of destruction in our society.
Columbine? Bomb materials and other supplies sitting in the kids rooms....and no parents said "hey son, whats with all the bombs?"
As each of the post WWII generations have grown up there have been more and more things that have been used to pawn off the job of parenting. So as each generation has grown and had kids the ways of being a solid parent of slowly degraded as well. This creates the single most important weakness with many of our social/domestic problems. Now a child gets an xbox and sits in their room or the opposite of that, you have kids so involved with sports and various other things that takes them away from family time. The parents in may occasions have to work so much that once again the family time is non existent. This is where I see the failure in our society. Everyone loves to point the finger at everyone else.

I think citizens should be allowed to have guns. I don't think citizens need 30 round clips for ak 47s. If someone breaks in to my home I don't have the time to go get an AR-15 out of the closet, pull it out of its case, load it, and get it ready before said person probably hears the movement and comes charging in. What I can do is pull a pistol out of a desk or night stand and be ready in under say 30 seconds versus the possibly 1-2 minutes or more it might take someone to get an AR 15 ready.

How many on here have honestly ever seen a book containing the laws of NC? Its so thick I think I would be better off throwing it at the robber as it would probably crush their skull in. And that book doesn't even include every single law because that would take a set of books to include everything from criminal to say, building code laws.

Every great civilization rises and falls. Cherish our time and consider yourself lucky to be in such a great period to be an American. My gut and study of other civilizations says in about 11-12 generations that won't be the case. So in about 120-140 years from now. In the life cycle of great societies the great shift begins when you make the change from being a producer on the rise to a consumer staying afloat. Over consumption and preoccupation with entertainment are two of the big signs that have been repeated over and over with the same result. Thankfully none of us will be around to see it!

[3rd]

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

[AppGrad1]

Violent movies games music...please....how about parents learn to be parents. Good parenting during the early ages has an immeasurable lasting affect on a child and this is where so many children suffer in our society.
If we go by people who fear the entertainment industry then I guess we need to outlaw those violent bands like the Beatles. Helter skelter anyone? Those filthy Brits planting the seeds of destruction in our society.
Columbine? Bomb materials and other supplies sitting in the kids rooms....and no parents said "hey son, whats with all the bombs?"
As each of the post WWII generations have grown up there have been more and more things that have been used to pawn off the job of parenting. So as each generation has grown and had kids the ways of being a solid parent of slowly degraded as well. This creates the single most important weakness with many of our social/domestic problems. Now a child gets an xbox and sits in their room or the opposite of that, you have kids so involved with sports and various other things that takes them away from family time. The parents in may occasions have to work so much that once again the family time is non existent. This is where I see the failure in our society. Everyone loves to point the finger at everyone else.

I think citizens should be allowed to have guns. I don't think citizens need 30 round clips for ak 47s. If someone breaks in to my home I don't have the time to go get an AR-15 out of the closet, pull it out of its case, load it, and get it ready before said person probably hears the movement and comes charging in. What I can do is pull a pistol out of a desk or night stand and be ready in under say 30 seconds versus the possibly 1-2 minutes or more it might take someone to get an AR 15 ready.

How many on here have honestly ever seen a book containing the laws of NC? Its so thick I think I would be better off throwing it at the robber as it would probably crush their skull in. And that book doesn't even include every single law because that would take a set of books to include everything from criminal to say, building code laws.

Every great civilization rises and falls. Cherish our time and consider yourself lucky to be in such a great period to be an American. My gut and study of other civilizations says in about 11-12 generations that won't be the case. So in about 120-140 years from now. In the life cycle of great societies the great shift begins when you make the change from being a producer on the rise to a consumer staying afloat. Over consumption and preoccupation with entertainment are two of the big signs that have been repeated over and over with the same result. Thankfully none of us will be around to see it!

You've made some good points. I agree with about all of them except the part about the 30 round clips. People keep asking why we "need" 30 round clips. The answer is because we "can". The 2nd allows it. It says we should have equal force as the government. There are no limits listed. Also, you really dragged out the part about loading an ak47 into 2 minutes? Are you serious? You said it'd take you about 30 seconds to get your pistol ready? It may take you that long but it doesn't take anyone else that long.
The 30 round clip debate is liberal big time. Anyone that shoots guns will attest, if they are truthful, that they can do as much damage time wise with a pistol with two 15 round mag's in about the same time.
Everything else you were spot on pretty much IMO. And that is unusual for us to agree!

[ASUPATCH]

By the logic of the 2nd ammendment allows us to have any weapon the goverment has logic then you must feel private citizens can own tanks and nuclear weapons? If not then you too are drawing a line you like in the 2nd ammend that fits your own personal agenda. Until you and I can own nuclear weapons the 2nd ammendment protects us from the goverment line is a joke.

[AppGrad1]

By the logic of the 2nd ammendment allows us to have any weapon the goverment has logic then you must feel private citizens can own tanks and nuclear weapons? If not then you too are drawing a line you like in the 2nd ammend that fits your own personal agenda. Until you and I can own nuclear weapons the 2nd ammendment protects us from the goverment line is a joke.

There are some citizens that own tanks and planes.
It's not all about our own government but other countries invading the US.

If it ever got to the point the government is against it's people Nuc's wouldn't be used anyway. It'd be planes, tanks and auto rifles...

[Watauga72]

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.

[ASUPATCH]

By the logic of the 2nd ammendment allows us to have any weapon the goverment has logic then you must feel private citizens can own tanks and nuclear weapons? If not then you too are drawing a line you like in the 2nd ammend that fits your own personal agenda. Until you and I can own nuclear weapons the 2nd ammendment protects us from the goverment line is a joke.

There are some citizens that own tanks and planes.
It's not all about our own government but other countries invading the US.

If it ever got to the point the government is against it's people Nuc's wouldn't be used anyway. It'd be planes, tanks and auto rifles...

For starters the 2nd amendment mentions nothing about other countries. Secondly yes you can own a tank body or plane. But you cannot own tank weaponry or fighter plane weaponry. What use is a tank or plane without the goods on them? Thank you as well for having the fortune telling skills to "know" nuclear weapons wouldnt be used. Unfortunately nothing you posted supports your position.

[AppGrad1]

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.

[AppGrad1]

By the logic of the 2nd ammendment allows us to have any weapon the goverment has logic then you must feel private citizens can own tanks and nuclear weapons? If not then you too are drawing a line you like in the 2nd ammend that fits your own personal agenda. Until you and I can own nuclear weapons the 2nd ammendment protects us from the goverment line is a joke.

There are some citizens that own tanks and planes.
It's not all about our own government but other countries invading the US.

If it ever got to the point the government is against it's people Nuc's wouldn't be used anyway. It'd be planes, tanks and auto rifles...

For starters the 2nd amendment mentions nothing about other countries. Secondly yes you can own a tank body or plane. But you cannot own tank weaponry or fighter plane weaponry. What use is a tank or plane without the goods on them? Thank you as well for having the fortune telling skills to "know" nuclear weapons wouldnt be used. Unfortunately nothing you posted supports your position.

OK, my bad. Nuc's probably will be used. When the people are fighting in the DC area against the government/police they will fire a Nuc that will only destroy the people, leaving the government/police alive.
This is way over the top example but this is why I mentioned my fortune telling skills on why Nuc's won't be used.

[ASUPATCH]

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.

Whats pretty clear is a nuc>30 mag.

[ASUPATCH]

By the logic of the 2nd ammendment allows us to have any weapon the goverment has logic then you must feel private citizens can own tanks and nuclear weapons? If not then you too are drawing a line you like in the 2nd ammend that fits your own personal agenda. Until you and I can own nuclear weapons the 2nd ammendment protects us from the goverment line is a joke.

There are some citizens that own tanks and planes.
It's not all about our own government but other countries invading the US.

If it ever got to the point the government is against it's people Nuc's wouldn't be used anyway. It'd be planes, tanks and auto rifles...

For starters the 2nd amendment mentions nothing about other countries. Secondly yes you can own a tank body or plane. But you cannot own tank weaponry or fighter plane weaponry. What use is a tank or plane without the goods on them? Thank you as well for having the fortune telling skills to "know" nuclear weapons wouldnt be used. Unfortunately nothing you posted supports your position.

live
OK, my bad. Nuc's probably will be used. When the people are fighting in the DC area against the government/police they will fire a Nuc that will only destroy the people, leaving the government/police alive.
This is way over the top example but this is why I mentioned my fortune telling skills on why Nuc's won't be used.

You are aware DC comprises less than 1% of the population? So nucs could take care care of 99.9% of American but your 30 round mag will keep us safe. LOL

[AppGrad1]

By the logic of the 2nd ammendment allows us to have any weapon the goverment has logic then you must feel private citizens can own tanks and nuclear weapons? If not then you too are drawing a line you like in the 2nd ammend that fits your own personal agenda. Until you and I can own nuclear weapons the 2nd ammendment protects us from the goverment line is a joke.

There are some citizens that own tanks and planes.
It's not all about our own government but other countries invading the US.

If it ever got to the point the government is against it's people Nuc's wouldn't be used anyway. It'd be planes, tanks and auto rifles...

For starters the 2nd amendment mentions nothing about other countries. Secondly yes you can own a tank body or plane. But you cannot own tank weaponry or fighter plane weaponry. What use is a tank or plane without the goods on them? Thank you as well for having the fortune telling skills to "know" nuclear weapons wouldnt be used. Unfortunately nothing you posted supports your position.

live
OK, my bad. Nuc's probably will be used. When the people are fighting in the DC area against the government/police they will fire a Nuc that will only destroy the people, leaving the government/police alive.
This is way over the top example but this is why I mentioned my fortune telling skills on why Nuc's won't be used.

You are aware DC comprises less than 1% of the population? So nucs could take care care of 99.9% of American but your 30 round mag will keep us safe. LOL

I'd rather go down with 30 rocks than 7 rocks. I like to know I did all I could do. You can throw how many you like if you want but I'll just take my chances with 30... Best of luck.

[Watauga72]

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.

[appdaze]

You've made some good points. I agree with about all of them except the part about the 30 round clips. People keep asking why we "need" 30 round clips. The answer is because we "can". The 2nd allows it. It says we should have equal force as the government. There are no limits listed. Also, you really dragged out the part about loading an ak47 into 2 minutes? Are you serious? You said it'd take you about 30 seconds to get your pistol ready? It may take you that long but it doesn't take anyone else that long.
The 30 round clip debate is liberal big time. Anyone that shoots guns will attest, if they are truthful, that they can do as much damage time wise with a pistol with two 15 round mag's in about the same time.
Everything else you were spot on pretty much IMO. And that is unusual for us to agree!

When talking about the time I guess I was more including instances like waking up realizing someone is there and breaking in to action or being somewhere else in the house, unless someone is so paranoid that they carry a pistol on their hips 24/7. Most robberies don't happen while you are there to shoot them anyway.


As far as the constitution goes don't forget guys, the constitution was not our first government. The articles of confederation came first. Then the states realized that a semi strong central government at least was indeed needed if the states were to survive. That is when we get the constitution. The militias they are referring to are minute men whom I think you could argue have evolved in to what we now call the national guard. Each state has one and they answer to the governor. They are a states first response in the same way that the militias were. When they wrote the second amendment the US had all kinds of threats against them. Native americans, Spanish in Florida, French to our west, British up north. We were surrounded by potential enemies on all sides. People needed to be able to arm themselves. Our founding fathers never fathomed that the US could turn in to the super world power that it has. I don't know about you guys but I'm not too worried about someone invading the US right now. I also don't think they could have ever imagined the type of incredibly weapons that we have today, unless Ben Franklin already had plans for nuclear bombs, tanks, fighter jets, and rocket launchers.
Just remember though, the more security you want the more freedom you have to give up. The same way with anything with a government. The more services and better services that you want the more taxes you need to pay. Americans have become obsessed with giving nothing/little but expecting everything.