NY Gov Gun Laws...

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

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.

I got rid of some of the embedded stuff. That may mess up the formatting - hopefully not.

Fair enough on the keeping some stuff private. I can respect that. I did join the ACLU a few years ago. They certainly, in my view, stick up for the 1st Amendment, sometimes in ways I hold my nose with, but they do generally go on the side of freedom of expression - which is good to have an org doing that.

I do think if guns are harder to come by they will be harder for criminals to get. Will it stop completely? Of course not. Do I think there will be a lot less gun related deaths? Yes. Will it take a few years? More than likely. You want to throw up the "stats can be twisted" argument, and yes they can be, but it is also a point where one has to see overwhelming evidence in similar situations and conclude that less guns do indeed lead to less deaths by guns. There are other factors at play. I think as a society, this country is fairly disfunctional and f-ed in the proverbial national head, and that does not help, but guns are just too easy to get and making that harder will make it harder for criminals to get guns.

[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.

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?

You're kidding, aren't you!!??? A flintlock revolver was patented in 1814 by Elishah Collier out of Boston. Based on this, you really think someone foresaw 30+ round magazines that fired at rapid pace???? And based on your previous posts, this proves that they intended citizens to have nuclear weapons, as the government has them!!! Now I'm really done with this thread as it's gone to stupid speed!

[Watauga72]

And, by the way, your founding fathers adulation should extend to the fact that these same men with the incredible foresight to see the future of 30 round semi-automatics also wrote into the Constitutuion that slaves were only 3/5's of a person and were not citizens. Good call on their part....really....

[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?

You're kidding, aren't you!!??? A flintlock revolver was patented in 1814 by Elishah Collier out of Boston. Based on this, you really think someone foresaw 30+ round magazines that fired at rapid pace???? And based on your previous posts, this proves that they intended citizens to have nuclear weapons, as the government has them!!! Now I'm really done with this thread as it's gone to stupid speed!

I can't speak for our Founding Fathers and what they dreamed of weapon wise. You can't either.
You saying they had no vision of this is about as absurd as you telling me that they didn't dream of something like this.

[AppGrad1]

And, by the way, your founding fathers adulation should extend to the fact that these same men with the incredible foresight to see the future of 30 round semi-automatics also wrote into the Constitutuion that slaves were only 3/5's of a person and were not citizens. Good call on their part....really....

Yea, they were some really dumb, stupid people...
What does that have to do with the 2nd amend?

PS. Try reading the following on Black History Month...
All is not what you make it out to be according to some others in the know... It's about your 3/5. Nice try at shooting down the Founding Fathers of this Great Country...
http://newwebcourant.wordpress.com/2012 ... d-slavery/

[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.

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?

You're kidding, aren't you!!??? A flintlock revolver was patented in 1814 by Elishah Collier out of Boston. Based on this, you really think someone foresaw 30+ round magazines that fired at rapid pace???? And based on your previous posts, this proves that they intended citizens to have nuclear weapons, as the government has them!!! Now I'm really done with this thread as it's gone to stupid speed!

I can't speak for our Founding Fathers and what they dreamed of weapon wise. You can't either.
You saying they had no vision of this is about as absurd as you telling me that they didn't dream of something like this.

What do you mean you can't speak for the founding fathers when it comes to weapons? You're the one that brought that up...... I never claimed i could speak for anyone.

[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?

You're kidding, aren't you!!??? A flintlock revolver was patented in 1814 by Elishah Collier out of Boston. Based on this, you really think someone foresaw 30+ round magazines that fired at rapid pace???? And based on your previous posts, this proves that they intended citizens to have nuclear weapons, as the government has them!!! Now I'm really done with this thread as it's gone to stupid speed!

I can't speak for our Founding Fathers and what they dreamed of weapon wise. You can't either.
You saying they had no vision of this is about as absurd as you telling me that they didn't dream of something like this.

What do you mean you can't speak for the founding fathers when it comes to weapons? You're the one that brought that up...... I never claimed i could speak for anyone.

did you read the article? Thomas Jefferson and others await an apology.

[Watauga72]

And, by the way, your founding fathers adulation should extend to the fact that these same men with the incredible foresight to see the future of 30 round semi-automatics also wrote into the Constitutuion that slaves were only 3/5's of a person and were not citizens. Good call on their part....really....

Yea, they were some really dumb, stupid people...
What does that have to do with the 2nd amend?

PS. Try reading the following on Black History Month...
All is not what you make it out to be according to some others in the know... It's about your 3/5. Nice try at shooting down the Founding Fathers of this Great Country...
http://newwebcourant.wordpress.com/2012 ... d-slavery/

Who's shooting anyone down? They were humans. Through compromise they came up with an incredible framework for government. By the way, what they did was technically illegal. They were charged with correcting the Articles of Confederation. That is why they met in secret. Counting slaves as 3/5's of a person for allocating representation was a compromise between the southern states and those of New England. They also allowed the importation of slaves until 1808. You presented the FF's as having incredible foresight. In reality, they were bright but flawed humans just like the rest of us.

[AppGrad1]

And, by the way, your founding fathers adulation should extend to the fact that these same men with the incredible foresight to see the future of 30 round semi-automatics also wrote into the Constitutuion that slaves were only 3/5's of a person and were not citizens. Good call on their part....really....

Are you telling me you complimented them here? "My" Founding Fathers adulation you said? "Good call on their part"....."really"...
Oh my bad. I misread your meaning...
and I agree with they make mistakes just like the rest of us.

[3rd]

did you know the Northern states didnt want to count slaves as a person but the southern states wanted them to be counted as a whole person

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/ ... s.facebook

This is about the sniper that was shot. Another gun related killing.

[AppGrad1]

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/ ... s.facebook

This is about the sniper that was shot. Another gun related killing.

Terrible news.
Local news reports have said that Routh was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. Another mental health issue that looks like guns will take the blame for...

[JCline0429]

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.

I got rid of some of the embedded stuff. That may mess up the formatting - hopefully not.

Fair enough on the keeping some stuff private. I can respect that. I did join the ACLU a few years ago. They certainly, in my view, stick up for the 1st Amendment, sometimes in ways I hold my nose with, but they do generally go on the side of freedom of expression - which is good to have an org doing that.

I do think if guns are harder to come by they will be harder for criminals to get. Will it stop completely? Of course not. Do I think there will be a lot less gun related deaths? Yes. Will it take a few years? More than likely. You want to throw up the "stats can be twisted" argument, and yes they can be, but it is also a point where one has to see overwhelming evidence in similar situations and conclude that less guns do indeed lead to less deaths by guns. There are other factors at play. I think as a society, this country is fairly disfunctional and f-ed in the proverbial national head, and that does not help, but guns are just too easy to get and making that harder will make it harder for criminals to get guns.

I'm not surprised you're a member of the ACLU.

[appst89]

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.

I got rid of some of the embedded stuff. That may mess up the formatting - hopefully not.

Fair enough on the keeping some stuff private. I can respect that. I did join the ACLU a few years ago. They certainly, in my view, stick up for the 1st Amendment, sometimes in ways I hold my nose with, but they do generally go on the side of freedom of expression - which is good to have an org doing that.

I do think if guns are harder to come by they will be harder for criminals to get. Will it stop completely? Of course not. Do I think there will be a lot less gun related deaths? Yes. Will it take a few years? More than likely. You want to throw up the "stats can be twisted" argument, and yes they can be, but it is also a point where one has to see overwhelming evidence in similar situations and conclude that less guns do indeed lead to less deaths by guns. There are other factors at play. I think as a society, this country is fairly disfunctional and f-ed in the proverbial national head, and that does not help, but guns are just too easy to get and making that harder will make it harder for criminals to get guns.

I'm not surprised you're a member of the ACLU.

I'm not a member, but anyone who values freedom of expression probably should be a member of the ACLU. They take up a lot of causes that I don't necessarily agree with, but I do appreciate what they do.

[JCline0429]

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.

I got rid of some of the embedded stuff. That may mess up the formatting - hopefully not.

Fair enough on the keeping some stuff private. I can respect that. I did join the ACLU a few years ago. They certainly, in my view, stick up for the 1st Amendment, sometimes in ways I hold my nose with, but they do generally go on the side of freedom of expression - which is good to have an org doing that.

I do think if guns are harder to come by they will be harder for criminals to get. Will it stop completely? Of course not. Do I think there will be a lot less gun related deaths? Yes. Will it take a few years? More than likely. You want to throw up the "stats can be twisted" argument, and yes they can be, but it is also a point where one has to see overwhelming evidence in similar situations and conclude that less guns do indeed lead to less deaths by guns. There are other factors at play. I think as a society, this country is fairly disfunctional and f-ed in the proverbial national head, and that does not help, but guns are just too easy to get and making that harder will make it harder for criminals to get guns.

I'm not surprised you're a member of the ACLU.

I'm not a member, but anyone who values freedom of expression probably should be a member of the ACLU. They take up a lot of causes that I don't necessarily agree with, but I do appreciate what they do.

I just wouldn't want to be a part of funding the wacko detrimental cases they take on. I disagree with far more of the cases they take on and win that those that I do agree with.

[goapps93]

There has been much discussion here about protecting ourselves from our own government but not much about citizens protecting ourselves from enemies of our country. Our borders are pretty much open as people from all over the world come here in droves, daily, to reside in our great land. What would keep a group that is not friendly with the US or its ways from organizing some type of violent act on a community. The example has been given about how long it would take for a person to retreive their rifle to defend against a home intruder. How long will it take for our national military or state national guard to assemble and deploy to a local community that comes under siege by a group of militants, domestic or foreign? That is why citizens should be armed and well armed, at that. Rest assured that the militants will have 30+ round magazines for their weapons. I would hate to witness that day but there may very well come a day that 30+ round magazines may be needed. I think the fact that we are currently able to be fairly well armed makes us safer. Right now it appears that there is some great increase in gun violence when it is more likely that we are just hyper-sensitive and seek out every single story of gun violence(McLeansvilleApp). The reason the cold war was cold is because the sides that matter were all equally armed and could wipe each other out before being wiped out.

[AppGrad1]

There has been much discussion here about protecting ourselves from our own government but not much about citizens protecting ourselves from enemies of our country. Our borders are pretty much open as people from all over the world come here in droves, daily, to reside in our great land. What would keep a group that is not friendly with the US or its ways from organizing some type of violent act on a community. The example has been given about how long it would take for a person to retreive their rifle to defend against a home intruder. How long will it take for our national military or state national guard to assemble and deploy to a local community that comes under siege by a group of militants, domestic or foreign? That is why citizens should be armed and well armed, at that. Rest assured that the militants will have 30+ round magazines for their weapons. I would hate to witness that day but there may very well come a day that 30+ round magazines may be needed. I think the fact that we are currently able to be fairly well armed makes us safer. Right now it appears that there is some great increase in gun violence when it is more likely that we are just hyper-sensitive and seek out every single story of gun violence(McLeansvilleApp). The reason the cold war was cold is because the sides that matter were all equally armed and could wipe each other out before being wiped out.

Be careful there! You are talking about the Great United States being attacked! How dare you. You are about to get lamblasted to think this could ever occur. I don't know much about this subject but I have read where certain religious extremest groups are building up to a point to announce war with the US and I mean from within.
I agree with the shooting media coverage. The liberal media will cover these shootings in the media now whereas in the past it would be a blip in the newspaper until they get their agenda passed.
I know the "Doomsday" people out there are way to the extreme but I myself can see a day when there could be a gas shortage/food shortage etc and civil unrest would/could break out. Looting, rioting, etc, would break out and people would be left to defend their homes and what's inside (food, etc).
I also think I read where Japan was wanting to invade the US in WWII but would not because they knew the citizens were heavily armed. Can anyone verify this?

[Watauga72]

did you read the article? Thomas Jefferson and others await an apology.

Mr. Jefferson will have to wait on his apology. Read the article, and not sure what point you're making by attaching it. No one here said the constitution was a racist document, which is the gist of the document. The constitution was one of the greatest works of compromise in US history, and the 3/5's clause is an example. As already stated on here, Southern participants in the convention insisted on counting slaves when calculating the number of representatives in the House, as a large portion of the Southern state's population were slaves. Those from the Northern states were generally less disposed to slavery and wanted to put an end to it. This was the compromise that kept the constitition on track.

As to Mr. Jefferson's role, he played none in the constitutional convention as he was in Paris at the time. He recognized the issues with slavery, writing that it caused harm to both the slave and the owner. Yet he never freed the majority of his 200 slaves, most of whom were sold after his death to pay the debts of the estate. So, enough said about that.

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

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.

I got rid of some of the embedded stuff. That may mess up the formatting - hopefully not.

Fair enough on the keeping some stuff private. I can respect that. I did join the ACLU a few years ago. They certainly, in my view, stick up for the 1st Amendment, sometimes in ways I hold my nose with, but they do generally go on the side of freedom of expression - which is good to have an org doing that.

I do think if guns are harder to come by they will be harder for criminals to get. Will it stop completely? Of course not. Do I think there will be a lot less gun related deaths? Yes. Will it take a few years? More than likely. You want to throw up the "stats can be twisted" argument, and yes they can be, but it is also a point where one has to see overwhelming evidence in similar situations and conclude that less guns do indeed lead to less deaths by guns. There are other factors at play. I think as a society, this country is fairly disfunctional and f-ed in the proverbial national head, and that does not help, but guns are just too easy to get and making that harder will make it harder for criminals to get guns.

I'm not surprised you're a member of the ACLU.

I'm not a member, but anyone who values freedom of expression probably should be a member of the ACLU. They take up a lot of causes that I don't necessarily agree with, but I do appreciate what they do.

I just wouldn't want to be a part of funding the wacko detrimental cases they take on. I disagree with far more of the cases they take on and win that those that I do agree with.

If someone only cars about speech that they agree with I would have to question their commitment to free speech to begin with, not that you have expressed an opinion on that matter, so I don't want to put words in your mouth.

There are some things I said I hold my nose to as it concerns the ACLU, but you have to give them credit, they do push the ideas that many only give lip service to.

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

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.

I got rid of some of the embedded stuff. That may mess up the formatting - hopefully not.

Fair enough on the keeping some stuff private. I can respect that. I did join the ACLU a few years ago. They certainly, in my view, stick up for the 1st Amendment, sometimes in ways I hold my nose with, but they do generally go on the side of freedom of expression - which is good to have an org doing that.

I do think if guns are harder to come by they will be harder for criminals to get. Will it stop completely? Of course not. Do I think there will be a lot less gun related deaths? Yes. Will it take a few years? More than likely. You want to throw up the "stats can be twisted" argument, and yes they can be, but it is also a point where one has to see overwhelming evidence in similar situations and conclude that less guns do indeed lead to less deaths by guns. There are other factors at play. I think as a society, this country is fairly disfunctional and f-ed in the proverbial national head, and that does not help, but guns are just too easy to get and making that harder will make it harder for criminals to get guns.

I'm not surprised you're a member of the ACLU.

I'm not a member, but anyone who values freedom of expression probably should be a member of the ACLU. They take up a lot of causes that I don't necessarily agree with, but I do appreciate what they do.

Wait a minute, you get the rep point, but I am the dues paying member.