Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
NY Passes Tough New Guns Laws  
User currently offlinedragon-wings From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 3986 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2714 times:

Governor Andrew Cuomo on Tuesday signed into law a new package of gun regulations intended to fortify New York's existing assault weapons ban, limit the number of bullets in magazines and strengthen rules that keep the mentally ill from owning firearms.

New York's law:
•Bans possession of any high-capacity magazines regardless of when they were made or sold. Only clips able to hold up to seven rounds can be sold in the state. Clips able to hold seven to 10 rounds can be possessed, but cannot be loaded with more than seven rounds. If an owner is found to have eight or more bullets in a magazine, he or she could face a misdemeanor charge.
•Requires ammunition dealers to do background checks, similar to those for gun buyers. Dealers are required to report all sales, including amounts, to the state. Internet sales of ammunition are allowed, but the ammunition will have to be shipped to a licensed dealer in New York state for pickup.
•Requires creation of a registry of assault weapons. Those New Yorkers who already own such weapons would be required to register their guns with the state.
•Most controversially, requires any therapist who believes a mental health patient made a credible threat of harming others to report the threat to a mental health director, who would then have to report serious threats to the state Department of Criminal Justice Services. A patient's gun could be taken from him or her, as well.
•Stipulates that stolen guns should be reported within 24 hours.
•Tightens the state's description of an "assault" weapon. Previous state law defined an assault weapon as having two "military rifle" features, but the new law reduces that specification to just one feature
•Requires background checks for all gun sales, including by private dealers -- except for sales to members of the seller's immediate family.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...-first-since-newtown-massacre?lite

[Edited 2013-01-15 16:00:51]


Don't give up don't ever give up - Jim Valvano
131 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 1, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2682 times:

Quoting dragon-wings (Thread starter):

I don't see how some of this helps keep guns out of the hands of criminals...at all. This does nothing.

Quoting dragon-wings (Thread starter):
•Bans possession of any high-capacity magazines regardless of when they were made or sold. Only clips able to hold up to seven rounds can be sold in the state. Clips able to hold seven to 10 rounds can be possessed, but cannot be loaded with more than seven rounds. If an owner is found to have eight or more bullets in a magazine, he or she could face a misdemeanor charge.

This makes no sense to me, at all. Whats to stop a criminal who has a 19 round 9mm from killing me when I have a 7 round 9mm? The criminal is going to win while I die. This is not very well thought out.

Quoting dragon-wings (Thread starter):
•Requires creation of a registry of assault weapons. Those New Yorkers who already own such weapons would be required to register their guns with the state.

Good luck with this one. 1) No one is going to register them because of 2) How do we know that the registry is not going to fall into the wrong hands and 3) This paints a target on the backs of gun owners by criminals who want to cause problems.

Fail.

This is a sad day for law abiding NY gun owners. Great intentions, but wrong approach...a knee-jerk reaction. The only question I have here is: "How exactly does this keep guns out of criminals hands and how does this actually gets the criminal to follow the law?"



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineKaiGywer From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 12251 posts, RR: 35
Reply 2, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2679 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 1):
n. The only question I have here is: "How exactly does this keep guns out of criminals hands and how does this actually gets the criminal to follow the law?"

Simple. It doesn't..



911, where is your emergency?
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 3, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2675 times:

Quoting KaiGywer (Reply 2):
Simple. It doesn't..

Exactly. NY is actually punishing the honest NY gun owner who follows and abides by the laws at the criminal's expense. Kudos.

NY State needs to try this again.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21654 posts, RR: 55
Reply 4, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2670 times:

Quoting dragon-wings (Thread starter):
%u2022Bans possession of any high-capacity magazines regardless of when they were made or sold. Only clips able to hold up to seven rounds can be sold in the state. Clips able to hold seven to 10 rounds can be possessed, but cannot be loaded with more than seven rounds. If an owner is found to have eight or more bullets in a magazine, he or she could face a misdemeanor charge.

I'm no gun expert, so I have no idea what a normal magazine could hold, but it would seem that there are a lot of them out there that would normally hold more than seven rounds. The number I keep hearing is 10-12, which seems reasonable. Seven seems excessive, but I agree on principle.

Quoting dragon-wings (Thread starter):
%u2022Requires ammunition dealers to do background checks, similar to those for gun buyers. Dealers are required to report all sales, including amounts, to the state. Internet sales of ammunition are allowed, but the ammunition will have to be shipped to a licensed dealer in New York state for pickup.

Not so sure about this one. The pickup requirement I have no problem with at all, nor the background check requirement (though I'd say that a current firearms license should be sufficient - it would save buyers time). But I'm not really sure why the government needs to know how much ammunition was purchased and by who. That's kind of like reporting to the government how much gas you buy.

Quoting dragon-wings (Thread starter):
%u2022Requires creation of a registry of assault weapons. Those New Yorkers who already own such weapons would be required to register their guns with the state.

Should be required for all guns, not just assault weapons.

Quoting dragon-wings (Thread starter):
%u2022Most controversially, requires any therapist who believes a mental health patient made a credible threat of harming others to report the threat to a mental health director, who would then have to report serious threats to the state Department of Criminal Justice Services. A patient's gun could be taken from him or her, as well.

Fine in principle, but in practice this is going to end up being a liability nightmare for those in the mental health profession. But the mechanism is something we're going to have to figure out if we're going to actually get serious about addressing mental health in combination with guns in this country, so...I guess someone has to be the guinea pig.

Quoting dragon-wings (Thread starter):
%u2022Stipulates that stolen guns should be reported within 24 hours.

Agree.

Quoting dragon-wings (Thread starter):
%u2022Tightens the state's description of an "assault" weapon. Previous state law defined an assault weapon as having two "military rifle" features, but the new law reduces that specification to just one feature

Semantics, not much there. This whole "assault rifle" thing is an ill-conceived mess of definitions and loopholes. The gun-control people need to realize that the best people to write those laws are the pro-gun people, because they actually know that they're talking about and know what guns are capable of what. But you're not going to get them onboard, so they're not going to help you out. Limiting magazine size is a much simpler solution - that way, someone who wants a gun that looks like an M16 for cosmetic reasons can have one, but they'll be restricted in the amount of damage they can do with it at one time.

Quoting dragon-wings (Thread starter):
%u2022Requires background checks for all gun sales, including by private dealers -- except for sales to members of the seller's immediate family.

It should include members of the seller's immediate family. The Sandy Hook shooter could have bought his weapons from his mother without any background check under this law. Background checks aren't that difficult to do.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 1):
I don't see how some of this helps keep guns out of the hands of criminals...at all.

Requiring background checks for all sales will make it harder for people who couldn't pass background checks to get guns. But the real problem is gun trafficking from states that have lenient gun laws, and there's nothing that New York can do about that. Only those states or the federal government can step in on that (and they should).

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2661 times:

Once agin the law abiding citizen gets the shaft, the criminal walks free


"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 6, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2658 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 4):
Requiring background checks for all sales will make it harder for people who couldn't pass background checks to get guns.

That does not keep a criminal from getting his/her gun illegally.

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 5):
Once agin the law abiding citizen gets the shaft, the criminal walks free

   And those criminals are laughing at us.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21654 posts, RR: 55
Reply 7, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2657 times:

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 5):
Once agin the law abiding citizen gets the shaft, the criminal walks free

That's the way it is with laws, yes. Unless the criminals are caught, of course. Then they don't walk free.

If we're going to object to laws by reasoning of "well, people who don't obey the law will be able to do things that people who do obey the law can't", what's the point of even having laws? Yet that would lead to anarchy.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineflymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7187 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2648 times:

Quoting dragon-wings (Thread starter):
•Most controversially, requires any therapist who believes a mental health patient made a credible threat of harming others to report the threat to a mental health director, who would then have to report serious threats to the state Department of Criminal Justice Services.


Wow something I agree with. It is like they read my mind. I proposed this is a paper I recently wrote.

Quoting dragon-wings (Thread starter):
•Bans possession of any high-capacity magazines regardless of when they were made or sold. Only clips able to hold up to seven rounds can be sold in the state


7 is ridiculous.

Quoting Mir (Reply 4):
The number I keep hearing is 10-12, which seems reasonable. Seven seems excessive, but I agree on principle.


10-12 is normal. 7 is absolutely ridiculous. Just hope you don't miss if a mad man comes into your home in NY.
So can a person just carry 2 magazines I guess?

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 5):
Once agin the law abiding citizen gets the shaft, the criminal walks free


Agreed

Quoting Mir (Reply 7):
That's the way it is with laws, yes. Unless the criminals are caught, of course. Then they don't walk free.

If we're going to object to laws by reasoning of "well, people who don't obey the law will be able to do things that people who do obey the law can't", what's the point of even having laws? Yet that would lead to anarchy.


Except this law is limiting a tool good people can use to defend themselves. Criminals don't care and you make a point when they get caught then its good. At the same time this is a tool a person can use to defend themselves against the criminal.



"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7919 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2639 times:

Sucks for NY gun owners, though I'd rather the states go about their own bans than something federal. Don't plan on ever living up in NY... these new measures seem pretty excessive though some I agree with


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinedragon-wings From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 3986 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2639 times:

With regards to the new 7 rounds law. Lets say someone has a gun that holds 12 rounds, but only loads 7 rounds into the clip. Would that be legal under the new?


Don't give up don't ever give up - Jim Valvano
User currently offlineN867DA From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1008 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2631 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 1):
I don't see how some of this helps keep guns out of the hands of criminals...at all. This does nothing.

  

Until something like this is implemented nationally, gun runners from my neck of the woods (Georgia) will keep the gun supply in New York state alive and healthy. There's a reason why I-95 has gotten a reputation for being a strong supply route--it simply is.



A nation turns its lonely eyes to you
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21654 posts, RR: 55
Reply 12, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2631 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 6):
That does not keep a criminal from getting his/her gun illegally.

Guns aren't created illegally. At some point, they go over from being legal to being illegal. That happens when sales are conducted without background checks, it happens when straw purchases are made, it happens when people who do pass background checks become criminals, and it happens when guns are stolen. You can't do much about the last two, but requiring background checks for all sales and keeping registrations make it a hell of a lot harder to engage in the first two. And that'll make a big difference (or it would if kept up nationally, one state doing it doesn't do a whole lot).

Quoting flymia (Reply 8):
Except this law is limiting a tool good people can use to defend themselves.

The only thing I see that limits people is the magazine capacity, which I've already said I think is too restrictive. If you're looking to rob somewhere, would it really matter to you that you had more bullets in your gun? A gunfight is not necessarily an endurance event - one well-placed shot from a well-trained gun owner and the situation is over.

Whenever you create a law, you're going to limit the good actions of good people - that's an inescapable fact of life. But that shouldn't stop laws from being enacted if the overal benefit of the law outweighs the drawbacks to those particular individuals (until you start running up against people's rights, which is when things get more complicated).

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19807 posts, RR: 59
Reply 13, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2626 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 9):
Sucks for NY gun owners, though I'd rather the states go about their own bans than something federal. Don't plan on ever living up in NY... these new measures seem pretty excessive though some I agree with

The law is worthless without federal action. Frankly, it's time to ban ALL sales of semiautomatic weapons nationally and start rounding them in. Only law enforcement and military should have access to such weapons, which should NEVER go home with personnel. When these weapons are simply unavailable, then criminals will not have them because they will not be available to have.

As long as it is done on a state-by-state basis without a national ban, then the critics are correct. The illegal weapons will simply cross borders from places where they are legal and wind up in the hands of criminals.

However, the gun manufacturers and the NRA will make sure it never happens. And the same "constitutional originalists" will claim that the constitution protects their right to posses weapons that didn't exist until 200 years after the Constitution was ratified.


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 14, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2624 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 12):
Guns aren't created illegally.

I never said that. I said they were obtained (for a better term) illegally by the criminal......

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 6):
That does not keep a criminal from getting his/her gun illegally.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineN867DA From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1008 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2618 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 13):
The law is worthless without federal action. Frankly, it's time to ban ALL sales of semiautomatic weapons nationally and start rounding them in. Only law enforcement and military should have access to such weapons, which should NEVER go home with personnel. When these weapons are simply unavailable, then criminals will not have them because they will not be available to have.

This is the most sensible approach to the problem in my opinion. It will take several years after stringent rules are implemented to see benefit, but over time lack of accessibility to such weapons will reduce their significance in American culture. It must also be implemented nationwide--Alaska to Florida, or more lenient states will become suppliers for states with stricter regulations.



A nation turns its lonely eyes to you
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21654 posts, RR: 55
Reply 16, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2615 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 13):
The law is worthless without federal action.

   But you can't wait for the federal government to act before passing your own legislation on an issue if you feel strongly about it.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 13):
Frankly, it's time to ban ALL sales of semiautomatic weapons nationally and start rounding them in.

I can't go that far. In a perfect world, you'd be right, but the cat's out of the bag on semi-automatics. There are two many of them out there, and there are a lot of people who use them for perfectly reasonable things. The point of gun control should be to keep weapons out of the hands of those who would do harm with them, not restrict what people who don't mean harm can do (of course, you're going to end up restricting what people who don't mean harm can do either way, but you can minimize that harm if you craft the laws appropriately and target what actually needs to be targeted).

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 13):
As long as it is done on a state-by-state basis without a national ban, then the critics are correct. The illegal weapons will simply cross borders from places where they are legal and wind up in the hands of criminals.

This is the elephant in the room that's going to be very difficult to address. Until Virginia reforms its gun laws, the Northeast is going to have a problem with illegal guns, because that's where a large portion of the illegal guns come from (and are purchased legally). That's something that only the federal government can stop.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 14):
I said they were obtained (for a better term) illegally by the criminal......

And I described how provisions in this law make it a lot harder to purchase guns without a background check and have someone else buy the gun for you. So if those two avenues are shut down, there are going to be a lot fewer criminals able to get their hands on guns.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7919 posts, RR: 52
Reply 17, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2603 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 13):
The law is worthless without federal action. Frankly, it's time to ban ALL sales of semiautomatic weapons nationally and start rounding them in. Only law enforcement and military should have access to such weapons, which should NEVER go home with personnel. When these weapons are simply unavailable, then criminals will not have them because they will not be available to have.

IMO that's just punishing the 99.9% because of the few bad. Even fully autos aren't completely banned and they are very very very very very rarely used in crime (a couple in the last few decades IIRC.) I wouldn't go as far as the NFA went but it goes to show you that you don't have to outright ban them to reduce the violence



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13120 posts, RR: 12
Reply 18, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2597 times:

NY State has seen too many gun used multiple murder events. Too many from drug gang and criminal violence. The crazy guy on the LIRR (I used to work with a woman who's father was killed in that mass murder). At a center that helped immigrants in Binghamton, NY. The mass murder of children in Sandy Hook has finally triggered major changes at least in NY State.
Problem is will these new NY State laws work? Criminals will still get handguns and military type guns as well as high capacity magazines. Private individuals, so long as not seen using such now illegal guns and magazines and doing private deals unlikely to be reported will have little to fear. Will police in the majority of NY State's area outside of about 10 urban counties (of over 60 counties in the state) enforce these laws? NY State and in particular NY City already have strict gun and handgun laws that in part have worked, but more likely gun murder rates in that state and in NY City is more about better police procedures, longer sentences for criminals who use guns.


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 19, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2595 times:

Quoting dragon-wings (Thread starter):
•Tightens the state's description of an "assault" weapon. Previous state law defined an assault weapon as having two "military rifle" features, but the new law reduces that specification to just one feature

So, let me ask: If I had a Tikka T3 30-06 hunting rifle and installed a military style scope on it, does that classify it as a military assault weapon, just because of the scope?? Seriously?!

Quoting Mir (Reply 16):
So if those two avenues are shut down, there are going to be a lot fewer criminals able to get their hands on guns.

Let's hope this actually works. Now Congress needs to make this a Federal Law.

Quoting Mir (Reply 16):
I can't go that far.

Me either, I agree. Like you said, there are wayyy too many of these around nationwide.

Quoting Mir (Reply 16):
The point of gun control should be to keep weapons out of the hands of those who would do harm with them, not restrict what people who don't mean harm can do

Agreed.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlinedl021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 20, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2565 times:

A knee jerk reaction that doesn't render anyone safer but leaves law abiding citizens at greater risk and will create an entirely new category of criminals out of formerly law abiding citizens who refuse to be deprived of their property.

They banned magazines in Gocks, Colts, Sigs...not just ARs. I don't even think they considered that .22 target pistols with 9 round magazines were included. What about 8 round revolvers...they are out there.

This law deprives people of their liberty and their property in a doomed effort to make people safer, when only the ignorant and deluded will feel that way.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5470 posts, RR: 14
Reply 21, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2564 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 4):
I'm no gun expert, so I have no idea what a normal magazine could hold, but it would seem that there are a lot of them out there that would normally hold more than seven rounds. The number I keep hearing is 10-12, which seems reasonable. Seven seems excessive, but I agree on principle.


This basically bans the majority of semi-automatic handguns out there. Most of your double-stack compacts will have a magazine that holds 9-11 rounds. A 'standard' (4 inch'ish barrel) semi-auto will have a capacity of 10 - 16 or 17, depending on caliber (again, double stack). Most of your .380's should be ok since they have 6 or 7 round magazines. Some of your larger caliber single stack should also be ok...the S&W Shield comes to mind, along with some of your smaller 1911 (.45) types. The vast majority of revolvers will be ok. The only exception that comes to mind is Ruger's LCR (capacity 8), but I'm sure there's others. But, since that's not a magazine, does that count?

What I consider the premier marksmanship practice pistol would also be banned; the Ruger Mark series.

I won't even get into rifles. It just about bans every semi-auto matic rifle...or at least the magazines that go into them.

Quoting Mir (Reply 4):
The pickup requirement I have no problem with at all, nor the background check requirement (though I'd say that a current firearms license should be sufficient - it would save buyers time).


And save cost. I can't imagine an FFL would provide a background check for free. I can see requiring a firearm's permit to purchase. I'm ok with that.

Quoting Mir (Reply 4):
Fine in principle, but in practice this is going to end up being a liability nightmare for those in the mental health profession.


Of course, you'd have to legislate around HIPAA.

Quoting dragon-wings (Thread starter):
•Stipulates that stolen guns should be reported within 24 hours.


Agreed.

Quoting dragon-wings (Thread starter):
•Requires background checks for all gun sales, including by private dealers -- except for sales to members of the seller's immediate family.


Let's make it a little bit less onerous...a background check or a valid carry or firearm permit. I'm not opposed to that at all.

Quoting dragon-wings (Thread starter):
•Requires creation of a registry of assault weapons.


Nope.

Quoting dragon-wings (Thread starter):
•Bans possession of any high-capacity magazines regardless of when they were made or sold. Only clips able to hold up to seven rounds can be sold in the state. Clips able to hold seven to 10 rounds can be possessed, but cannot be loaded with more than seven rounds. If an owner is found to have eight or more bullets in a magazine, he or she could face a misdemeanor charge.


Will NY State pay for the magazine that can't be sold? What about keeping a round in the chamber? If I have a 10 round magazine, but keep 7 in the magazine and one in the chamber, what happens?

All-in-all, feel good legislation that makes no one safer.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15749 posts, RR: 27
Reply 22, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2533 times:

Quoting dragon-wings (Thread starter):
•Requires ammunition dealers to do background checks, similar to those for gun buyers. Dealers are required to report all sales, including amounts, to the state. Internet sales of ammunition are allowed, but the ammunition will have to be shipped to a licensed dealer in New York state for pickup.

Seems like it would be an expensive and annoying exercise, but this better put an end to anti-gun people questioning why gun owners have large stocks of ammunition.

Quoting dragon-wings (Thread starter):
•Requires creation of a registry of assault weapons.

Better not be public.

Quoting Mir (Reply 7):
Unless the criminals are caught, of course. Then they don't walk free.

Expanding the definition of criminal to people who dare put eight rounds in a magazine doesn't make me feel any safer. (Or wouldn't if I were in New York)

Quoting Mir (Reply 12):
Guns aren't created illegally.

It wouldn't be that difficult actually. Several thousand dollars of tooling, some skill, and materials. I'd say it probably isn't considerably more challenging than bomb making.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 13):
And the same "constitutional originalists" will claim that the constitution protects their right to posses weapons that didn't exist until 200 years after the Constitution was ratified.

In that case you have no problems with warrant-less wiretaps of phone lines or spying on email or cellular communications right? None of those were considered when the Fourth Amendment was written.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5470 posts, RR: 14
Reply 23, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2527 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 22):
Several thousand dollars of tooling, some skill, and materials.

I could make a servicable single fire breech loader in a couple of hours with the simple tools in my garage. And, I'm no machinists...as any of my A&P instructors would attest to.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offline2707200X From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 8545 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2525 times:

I really don't think we need assault rifles and drum magazines to defend ourselves our families and our businesses from criminals or to hunt with. They belong in the battlefield and I would support them in shooting ranges for civilian use, I have no problem with them there but for what reason does one need them in a house other than to fight a police force or army or start an insurrection.


"And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by." John Masefield Sea-Fever
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21654 posts, RR: 55
Reply 25, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2565 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 23):
I could make a servicable single fire breech loader in a couple of hours with the simple tools in my garage.

I'm not really concerned with anyone trying to use a single fire breech loader in a crime any time soon.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineT prop From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 1029 posts, RR: 1
Reply 26, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2556 times:

7 round magazines? Why not just require owners of weapons that are capable of using high capacity magazines have a proper gun safe and to keep the weapons locked up?

User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5470 posts, RR: 14
Reply 27, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2552 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 25):
I'm not really concerned with anyone trying to use a single fire breech loader in a crime any time soon.

Neither am I, though it could certainly ruin someone's day. Just making a comment based on another comment.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15749 posts, RR: 27
Reply 28, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2543 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 25):
I'm not really concerned with anyone trying to use a single fire breech loader in a crime any time soon.

Building more powerful stuff would probably take more effort, but not enough to be impossible or even improbable. Considering the extent of some drug enterprises I don't think that underground machine shops are much of a stretch.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29802 posts, RR: 58
Reply 29, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2482 times:

Well NY and Cuome hust proved that they are part of the armpit of America.

Hopefully most of these rules will be dumped in lawsuits.

Remington needs to move its factory out of that state. They are not respected mlby the state, so why stay there



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently onlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6600 posts, RR: 6
Reply 30, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2478 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting L-188 (Reply 29):
Remington needs to move its factory out of that state. They are not respected mlby the state, so why stay there

They should. If they don't - you should loose respect to Remington.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 31, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2443 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 29):
Remington needs to move its factory out of that state.

I agree. I took them as a Texas company. Didn't know that they were NY based.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29802 posts, RR: 58
Reply 32, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2438 times:

I haven't bought a Remington in years. I avoided them when about ten years ago they where putting those stupid bolt keys on their rifles.

Worse if you sent one back to the factory for work. they would install the damn thing if you wanted it or not. A lot of people got turned off by that stunt

[Edited 2013-01-16 08:56:51]

Edit: i have really been impressed with the fit and quality of the rifles from CZ. I know i should buy american but the Chechs know how to build a firearm.


[Edited 2013-01-16 08:59:52]


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3308 posts, RR: 13
Reply 33, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2413 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

DISCLAIMER: I DO NOT WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE WITH THE NEW LAW. My problem comes with the arguments being thrown at one another in here.

I BEG OF YOU ALL TO READ ALL OF MY COMMENTS, NOT JUST THE ONES YOU'RE QUOTED IN, TO UNDERSTAND MY VIEWPOINT (it's somewhere in the middle).


Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 1):
This makes no sense to me, at all. Whats to stop a criminal who has a 19 round 9mm from killing me when I have a 7 round 9mm? The criminal is going to win while I die. This is not very well thought out.

So if someone breaks into your house, you're going to want to shoot him 19 times??? You're either a terrible shot, or sick. You don't have to kill him 7 times to stop him. You don't even have to kill him once.

Quoting KaiGywer (Reply 2):
Simple. It doesn't..

No laws do. That's the definition of "criminal". If you want "freedom" and are so jealous of the criminals, go break the law.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 3):
Exactly. NY is actually punishing the honest NY gun owner who follows and abides by the laws at the criminal's expense. Kudos.

OK, Mr. Honest Gun Owner. Justify having 6 guns that each hold 30-round magazines. If you can convince me, I'll flip my opinion on a dime. "It's a hobby" is not enough to convince me, that leaves the realm of "rights" because, although I own several cameras, I'm not going to murder someone with one. "I hunt" isn't justification either, because you can't use multiple rifles at the same time. You're not going to shoot 4 deer at once, nor are you going to shoot onoe 30 times, not are you going to shoot so many deer that you need a big clip of ammunition at the ready.

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 5):
Once agin the law abiding citizen gets the shaft, the criminal walks free

A bit dramatic, no? As I said above, if you're jealous of the criminal's "rights", then go break the law. Oh, what's that? You don't want to have to break the law to have your way? Then, as above, justify why you need high-power guns with huge ammunition clips.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 18):
NY State has seen too many gun used multiple murder events.

This is my biggest problem with any discussion being put forth. Limiting the number of bullets, or the size of the magazine, may reduce the number of casualites in events like the Aurora or Newtown shootings. If that's your goal, fine. ("Oh, good, only 5 children died.") However, it is NOT going to reduce the number of incidents. The guy in Newtown, had he had smaller clips, would have done just what he did, with fewer casualties. Same in Aurora. HOWEVER, eleminating guns entirely won't help things much either. The kid in Newtown would have found another way to kill his mother, and may have committed atrocities in different ways (car rampage, knife-weilding, etc). The issue in this country is very much a cultural one.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 22):
Better not be public.

I can't imagine it would be. Even I would be against that.

Quoting 2707200X (Reply 24):
I really don't think we need assault rifles and drum magazines to defend ourselves our families and our businesses from criminals or to hunt with.

Of course we don't, and this is the biggest argument in support of these laws (see one of my earlier paragraphs).

Quoting L-188 (Reply 29):
Well NY and Cuome hust proved that they are part of the armpit of America.

Really? That's a bit excessive considering some of the laws other states have. How can you call NY the armpit of America when most states still don't recognize same-sex civil unions, and when many people in other parts of the country still think Obama is a Muslim?

TIS



www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 34, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2412 times:

Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 33):
So if someone breaks into your house, you're going to want to shoot him 19 times???

Who said I was going to do that? WTF?!

Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 33):
You're either a terrible shot, or sick.

Are you trying to be flamebait-ish here? Looks like it. Im not even going to comment on that. Ignorant you are, yes.

Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 33):
If you can convince me, I'll flip my opinion on a dime.

I have nothing to convince you with. You are not an American citizen nor do you pay American taxes nor do you live here. I do not have to justify myself to you, period.

Your entire post is ignorant and flamebait-ish which shouldn't warrant a response from anyone. You don't need to come off like a jackass.   



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5470 posts, RR: 14
Reply 35, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2394 times:

Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 33):
So if someone breaks into your house, you're going to want to shoot him 19 times???

If that's what it takes to stop the threat, yes. Let's be clear on this, if someone breaks into your house, he has the advantage. I have no illusion that under stressful conditions, I am the same great shot that I am at the range. That's why I use a laser on my gun. Not because its cool, but because under a stressful situation I need every advantage I can get.

Any piece of literature that I have read on the subject of carrying a gun a and using it in self-defense says the same thing, you shot until the threat no longer exists. That may be one round, that may be 10 rounds. For some, it may be more.

Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 33):
I can't imagine it would be. Even I would be against that.

But, isn't that what just happened in NY. The names and addresses of gun permit holders were given to a newspaper under a FOIA request. The paper than went onto publish said names and addresses on a really cool interactive map.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3308 posts, RR: 13
Reply 36, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2396 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I'll try to remain as respectful as I can. One of us has to try.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 34):
Who said I was going to do that? WTF?!

Your post (the text I quoted) said, "This makes no sense to me, at all. Whats to stop a criminal who has a 19 round 9mm from killing me when I have a 7 round 9mm? The criminal is going to win while I die. This is not very well thought out." This implies you imagine yourself at a disadvantage with only 7 rounds and that you expect the gunfight to be a contest of who can shoot the other more often.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 34):
Are you trying to be flamebait-ish here? Looks like it. Im not even going to comment on that. Ignorant you are, yes.

I am most certainly not ignorant. I am not a gun owner, I'll admit, but I have used firearms (in a safe environment) and would be entirely in support of someone owning a pistol for self-defense in their home. I am mostly for this new law, yes, but I am certainly not completely against any type of gun ownership, either.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 34):
I have nothing to convince you with. You are not an American citizen nor do you pay American taxes nor do you live here. I do not have to justify myself to you, period.

Wrong. I am an American (born here, lived here my whole life). I am also a small business owner, so I pay my taxes and my dues, maybe even in more ways than you do. Not only that, I live in NYS where this law may end up affecting me, so I am more qualified to comment on this scenario than many others.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 34):
Your entire post is ignorant and flamebait-ish which shouldn't warrant a response from anyone. You don't need to come off like a jackass.

It wasn't intended as such, and I apologize for calling you "sick." I'll admit my reaction to the apparently ridiculousness of wanting to have more bullets "so you'd be even with the criminal" got my blood boiling. As someone else stated, a gunfight isn't an endurance test.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 35):
Any piece of literature that I have read on the subject of carrying a gun a and using it in self-defense says the same thing, you shot until the threat no longer exists. That may be one round, that may be 10 rounds. For some, it may be more.

This seems like a slight lapse in gun training, but I'll admit I can't make judgement until I've been in that situation, which I hope nobody ever has to be.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 35):
But, isn't that what just happened in NY. The names and addresses of gun permit holders were given to a newspaper under a FOIA request. The paper than went onto publish said names and addresses on a really cool interactive map.

Yes, it is what just happened, but I said (or I thought I said) that it shouldn't be public. The Journal News' oversight (they're my local paper, and my LLC's formation notice actually appeared the same day the map did) was one that I think was stupid and propaganda-motivated.

TIS

[Edited 2013-01-16 10:22:28]


www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 37, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2388 times:

Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 36):

You came off very harsh and disrespectful, that why I responded the way I did. You don't deserve any explanation from me.

Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 36):
I am an American (born here, lived here my whole life).

Well, hot damn! You could have avoided the response I gave you by changing that flag of yours that currently shows "Switzerland". That is also why you got the response you got from me. That is your own damn fault. Quit misrepresenting yourself saying you are from Switzerland when you really are not. That will solve some of the confusions here, especially on threads like this.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently onlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6600 posts, RR: 6
Reply 38, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2374 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 37):

Well, hot damn! You could have avoided the response I gave you by changing that flag of yours that currently shows "Switzerland". That is also why you got the response you got from me. That is your own damn fault. Quit misrepresenting yourself saying you are from Switzerland when you really are not. That will solve some of the confusions here, especially on threads like this.

Yikes..Alex Jones.. is that you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1Ddb3oa5CE



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 39, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2365 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 38):
Yikes..Alex Jones.. is that you?

Uh, what??   



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently onlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6600 posts, RR: 6
Reply 40, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2367 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 39):

Uh, what??

You are so calm and rational.. you reminded me of him.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineKaiGywer From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 12251 posts, RR: 35
Reply 41, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2362 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting Mir (Reply 4):
I'm no gun expert, so I have no idea what a normal magazine could hold, but it would seem that there are a lot of them out there that would normally hold more than seven rounds. The number I keep hearing is 10-12, which seems reasonable. Seven seems excessive, but I agree on principle.

I agree, seven is ridiculous. Even though I don't see the point, if anything, go to ten, since that was the last allowed limitation. These magazines are already in existence and many people own them. For reference, my Glock 23 holds 13 rounds of 40, and my wife's Glock 19 holds 15 rounds of 9mm.

Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 33):
"I hunt" isn't justification either, because you can't use multiple rifles at the same time. You're not going to shoot 4 deer at once, nor are you going to shoot onoe 30 times, not are you going to shoot so many deer that you need a big clip of ammunition at the ready.

Not at the same time, but if you are an avid hunter, you probably hunt several different species. You wouldn't use the same gun for deer as you would for prairie dogs for example. Then you get into bird hunting and that's a whole different ballgame.

I have never hunted, but I'm pretty sure 30 rounds would be excessive and you probably shouldn't be hunting if you need that many   Ammo capacity is already limited by hunting regulations anyways

Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 36):
This seems like a slight lapse in gun training, but I'll admit I can't make judgement until I've been in that situation, which I hope nobody ever has to be.

Not really. Police officers get a lot of training and statistics say that even your 95% shooter at the range will drop to a 20% shooter in a stressful situation. Which is why a lot of police training now includes inducing stress on the range.



911, where is your emergency?
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 42, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2359 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 40):
You are so calm and rational.. you reminded me of him.

Uh, yeah sure... pick on the deaf guy.    That video doesn't do anything for me. Sorry.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21654 posts, RR: 55
Reply 43, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2356 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 35):
Let's be clear on this, if someone breaks into your house, he has the advantage. I have no illusion that under stressful conditions, I am the same great shot that I am at the range.

The intruder is also going to be under stress, and you have the advantage of knowing the layout of the house while the intruder probably doesn't. I'd think that would tend to equal things out.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently onlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6600 posts, RR: 6
Reply 44, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2352 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 42):

Uh, yeah sure... pick on the deaf guy. That video doesn't do anything for me. Sorry.

You can get the jist by looking at him. But here is transcript

http://lybio.net/tag/alex-jones-vs-p...rgan-on-gun-control-transcription/



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 45, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2352 times:

As is typical in New York, Politicians never waste a tragedy, neither does the press. When some nut job decides to cross the line and cause injury to others, naturally new laws are legislated and everyone suffers. All the rules, regs and all that are not going to prevent psycho cases from assaulting other humans with whatever they see as a useful tool to accomplish the evil they conjure up. Just like on 9/11, Are we to ban airliners or sky scrapers because of the propensity of some dastardly deed perpetrated by some idiots. In the last 6 weeks three people have died by the hand of subway cars, do we cry out for a ban on subways?. No, any rational thinking person understands the realities of the day of 9/11, the realities of accidents and or intentional harm by others. So while Mr. Cuomo's, whose rants were tantamount to Tom Cruises jumping up and down on Oprah's TV set couch, I doubt much was accomplished here other than the tightening of the noose further on the local hardworking NY, taxpayers that bother no one, have suffered from the recent hurricane, some still without a home and not to mention, some witnessed looting of their own personal belongings from their ravaged homes and could do nothing. Now we will be able to further, do nothing, given even tighter restrictions. But congratulations Mr. Cuomo on being the First in the Nation to pass ridiculous legislation...again. I couldn't imagine being the parent of any loved one murdered by another, I hope I never have to experience it but I am aware that mean people exist and unfortunately the only way they stand out is after the fact. You can't outlaw mental illness. But then again, this is NEW York, maybe you can.

User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12597 posts, RR: 25
Reply 46, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2351 times:

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 5):
Once agin the law abiding citizen gets the shaft, the criminal walks free

Cry me a river. Every ****ing dog (yes, every barking dog) in my town has a license tag hanging around its neck and I don't hear dog owners complaining. In fact it helps police locate missing dogs and helps them identify dogs that are ****ing (yes barking) in my yard.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 34):
You are not an American citizen nor do you pay American taxes nor do you live here. I do not have to justify myself to you, period.

And I presume that you are not a NY state citizen, so it doesn't impact you, move along...



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 47, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2345 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 46):
And I presume that you are not a NY state citizen, so it doesn't impact you, move along...

No need to move along, and I effing won't. It impacts me and it also impacts the whole country. When one State adopts a tough law, many other States will follow. It's a classic case of "Monkey see, Monkey do".

Don't believe me? Just watch for the next few months on what the other States will do.

And no, I don't live in NY. NY is still in the U.S. is it not?? So it does impact me greatly.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5470 posts, RR: 14
Reply 48, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2340 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 43):
The intruder is also going to be under stress, and you have the advantage of knowing the layout of the house while the intruder probably doesn't. I'd think that would tend to equal things out.

But, he has probably done this before. I haven't. He has a real good idea on how far he's willing to go. I have no clue what he's willing to do. My knowing the layout of the house is a marginal advantage that probably goes out the door while I'm under stress. My biggest advantage, in my home, was my Dobermann. Sadly, she's gone and we're not ready to get another one.

I was a firefighter for 10 years. I understand what immediate onset stress can do. It warps time. It destroys fine motor skills. A great deal of stress reduces the stressed person to instinctive reactions. That's why fire departments train incessantly. To minimize the effects of stress.

Sorry, if the intruder or mugger or attacker is initiating the action, he will have the initial advantage by default. Everything I do after that is catch-up...and may well fail.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12597 posts, RR: 25
Reply 49, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2289 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 47):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 46):
And I presume that you are not a NY state citizen, so it doesn't impact you, move along...

No need to move along, and I effing won't. It impacts me and it also impacts the whole country.

It only directly impacts citizens of NY state, since this is a NY state law. It impacts you about as much as the Swiss guy, who you seemed to be quite happy to tell to go p*ss off.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 47):
When one State adopts a tough law, many other States will follow. It's a classic case of "Monkey see, Monkey do".

Baloney. If so, then you are stipulating that the deep red states will be taking OR's new laws on recreational marijuana and GBLT marriage and adopting them, which we both know is about as likely as OR mandating Christian prayer and creationism in its schools.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 47):
Don't believe me? Just watch for the next few months on what the other States will do.

Ok, I'll be watching for two married GBLTs sparking up a joint at the Texas State House. Let me know when that happens.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 47):
And no, I don't live in NY. NY is still in the U.S. is it not?? So it does impact me greatly.

No, it doesn't.

How come the right was all about state's rights when it came to health care, but all of a sudden they are afraid of state's rights? I thought government was supposed to function as close to the local level as possible, no?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7919 posts, RR: 52
Reply 50, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2288 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 47):
When one State adopts a tough law, many other States will follow. It's a classic case of "Monkey see, Monkey do".

Actually I see it as a good compromise... I doubt SC and GA are gonna be following the leads of NY. If anything, our loose gun laws affect NY and not vice versa. If we can keep guns from getting smuggled into their states I don't think they'll care what our gun laws are in the south



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21654 posts, RR: 55
Reply 51, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2270 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 50):
If anything, our loose gun laws affect NY and not vice versa. If we can keep guns from getting smuggled into their states I don't think they'll care what our gun laws are in the south

This sums up my position on gun control perfectly. I only care about other states' gun laws to the extent that they affect my state (NY). If we could have some sort of magic barrier around the state that would keep out guns that aren't supposed to be here, then every other state could have whatever laws they want to and I'd be fine with it. After all, what is necessary in NYC (strict gun control) is not what is necessary out in the wilderness of Montana, and the respective laws should reflect that.

But it pisses me off to no end when, since we don't and can't have a magic barrier, criminals go to a gun show in Virginia or Arizona or any of the other states with lax laws, legally buy handguns at a gun show without ever going through a background check because they're buying from a "private seller" instead of a dealer, and then those guns show up at crime scenes in New York, used either by the criminals who bought them or by criminals they sold them to later on. And it pisses me off even further when we call those states on it and the response is "mind your own business" - crime on our streets that's being fed by the laws of other states is most definitely our business.

So make it so that it's nigh impossible for guns to illegally cross state lines (which means background checks for all sales to make sure that buyers are legally able to own the weapons, and then registration or some other means of tracking in order to catch straw purchasers) and then you can have whatever other lenient gun laws you wish. I don't think that's unreasonable.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7919 posts, RR: 52
Reply 52, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2251 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 51):
So make it so that it's nigh impossible for guns to illegally cross state lines (which means background checks for all sales to make sure that buyers are legally able to own the weapons, and then registration or some other means of tracking in order to catch straw purchasers) and then you can have whatever other lenient gun laws you wish. I don't think that's unreasonable.

I do not either. You and I probably agree that straw purchasing won't totally end, unfortunately, but I think it would go down dramatically. And anyone who makes a business out of straw purchasing will quickly find him/herself in jail when a firearm registered to them turns up in a crime a few states away



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 53, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2244 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 49):
Baloney

You sure you don't want to retract that? Check this out then, almost similar to the NY State law, proposed by Obama:

http://seattletimes.com/html/politic...020140136_apusobamaguncontrol.html



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5470 posts, RR: 14
Reply 54, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2239 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 51):
So make it so that it's nigh impossible for guns to illegally cross state lines (which means background checks for all sales to make sure that buyers are legally able to own the weapons, and then registration or some other means of tracking in order to catch straw purchasers) and then you can have whatever other lenient gun laws you wish. I don't think that's unreasonable.

Here's what I don't think is reasonable. NY wishes to impose its gun control laws on the rest of the country because the majority of ITS politicians don't trust its populace with firearms.

Do you think its reasonable that one state (or even 2, 3 or 5 states) should be able to impose their will on the other states. Because that what NY is saying.
-NY politicians don't trust their citizens with guns, so they are heavily restricted or banned.
-Other states do trust their citizens with guns, so it is easier for an eligible citizen to purchase a gun.
-Some of those guns wind up in NY, where the politicians don't trust the citizens.
-Other states need to adopt NY's way of thinking.

Overly simplistic, but you get the point. A minority of people is trying to push their viewpoint on the rest of the country.

And, for the record, I am not opposed to requiring that private transactions of firearms meet some higher level of scrutiny. For instance, if a buyer has a valid concealed carry permit or a firearm's permit, that should suffice for the purchase. If the buyer does not, then the transaction has to go through an FFL so the appropriate NICS check can happen.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 55, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2235 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 46):

What the heck are you talking about...?



"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12597 posts, RR: 25
Reply 56, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2224 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 53):
You sure you don't want to retract that? Check this out then, almost similar to the NY State law, proposed by Obama:

No, because the NY law still only impacts NY citizens, and the proposed federal law will only impact US citizens if/when it gets passed by Congress and signed by the President. Given that the House is solidly Red, the ball is in your court.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 54):
Other states need to adopt NY's way of thinking.

That's where your logic fails. Other states do not need to adopt NY's way of thinking. I'm pretty sure my state of residence, NH, will not. Interestingly enough, it's the place where Nancy Lanza was born and where she seemingly picked up her love of guns, the one she transferred to her son Adam, which resulted in her being his first murder victim.

And, I reiterate: How come the right was all about state's rights when it came to health care, but all of a sudden they are afraid of state's rights? I thought government was supposed to function as close to the local level as possible, no? NY wants strict gun laws, TX doesn't, all's fine, right?

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 55):
What the heck are you talking about...?

That the law abiding citizen is not getting the shaft, he's just being a good citizen.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7919 posts, RR: 52
Reply 57, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2223 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 56):
No, because the NY law still only impacts NY citizens, and the proposed federal law will only impact US citizens if/when it gets passed by Congress and signed by the President. Given that the House is solidly Red, the ball is in your court.

I hope we do go down this road. As a return gesture, I hope the more lenient gun-law states will try their best to prohibit the flow of arms to the more strict states... don't piss them off so they don't try something federal!



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 58, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2221 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 56):
No, because the NY law still only impacts NY citizens, and the proposed federal law will only impact US citizens if/when it gets passed by Congress and signed by the President. Given that the House is solidly Red, the ball is in your court.

If you even BOTHERED to read the article, Obama's proposal almost mirrors what the NY law is. But I don't think you even bothered to read the article.

Not my problem that you didn't read.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5470 posts, RR: 14
Reply 59, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2219 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 56):
Other states do not need to adopt NY's way of thinking.

But, they are, indirectly. When they enact a highly restrictive law, and that law is ineffective because other states are not as restrictive, they point to the other states and say you need to change your ways. And then, when they don't see action, they ask for federal intervention. Mark my words, this is the pattern we will see if NY's laws stand court scrutiny (as I think they will).

Quoting Revelation (Reply 56):
NY wants strict gun laws, TX doesn't, all's fine, right?

I don't have any problems with that. NY does. CA does. IL does.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21654 posts, RR: 55
Reply 60, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2190 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 54):
Here's what I don't think is reasonable. NY wishes to impose its gun control laws on the rest of the country because the majority of ITS politicians don't trust its populace with firearms.

Whenever NY complains about gun crime driven by guns bought legally elsewhere and trafficked in, the response from the pro-gun crowd tends to be something along the lines of "well, you can't really do anything about criminals getting guns, so you need more lenient gun laws so that your citizens can get guns to defend themselves". In other words, trying to impose other states' gun laws on NY.

It's really simple: so long as State A takes steps to make sure that the guns purchased in State A stay in State A (registration or tracking), then State A can have as liberal gun laws as it wants. But don't let State A's gun laws become State B's problem (or, in other words, don't let State B's criminals live by State A's gun laws).

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12597 posts, RR: 25
Reply 61, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2183 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 58):
If you even BOTHERED to read the article, Obama's proposal almost mirrors what the NY law is.

And if you even BOTHERED to read what I wrote, no matter WHAT the President is PROPOSING even if it is LINE FOR LINE IDENTICAL to the NY law it ISN'T impacting ANYONE because it ISN'T a law, whereas NY just signed their bill into law so it IS impacting NY citizens right NOW!

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 59):

But, they are, indirectly.

"Indirectly" is not consistent with your use of the word "need", IMHO.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 59):
When they enact a highly restrictive law, and that law is ineffective because other states are not as restrictive, they point to the other states and say you need to change your ways. And then, when they don't see action, they ask for federal intervention.

Even "indirect" is too strong. Federal intervention will need to be delivered via Congress, so one state's Members at best can try to influence other state's Members, but that's the extent of it. The Members from the "less restrictive" state will have to be answerable to their electorate, not to other state's electorate.

Of course, if that Member should not make himself answerable to his electorate, those gun owners who see the profound wisdom and clarity of the 2nd amendment the same way as Hon. Justice Scalia does already know how they will be addressing the situation, right?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5470 posts, RR: 14
Reply 62, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2177 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 60):
In other words, trying to impose other states' gun laws on NY.

Nope, just suggesting an answer to a problem that a small segment (~6%) of the overall population has. Not imposing anything...though the Reciprocity Act did push into that area. I didn't support that, because NY State has the right to determine how it deals with its own issues.

Quoting Mir (Reply 60):
then State A can have as liberal gun laws as it wants. But don't let State A's gun laws become State B's problem (or, in other words, don't let State B's criminals live by State A's gun laws).

Hmmm, that 's the same argument Mexico uses, isn't it? The same argument they use...and the Obama administration has advanced to restrict our Second Amendment rights.

[Edited 2013-01-16 21:31:35]


When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21654 posts, RR: 55
Reply 63, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2173 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 62):
Nope, just suggesting an answer to a problem that a small segment (~6%) of the overall population has.

It's really just saying "we don't want to live by your gun laws, why don't you live by ours?" I don't see why that should be any less objectionable just because it comes from a state with more lenient gun laws.

I'll state my position another way: The rules for ensuring the people buying are eligible to do so, and that they're not passing the guns on to others who aren't eligible, should be federal. I'm fine with everything else (what guns and ammunition you can buy, waiting periods, etc.) being left up to the individual states.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 62):
Hmmm, that 's the same argument Mexico uses, isn't it?

And they should use it. They've got a right to be pissed with all the guns that are being bought in the US and smuggled into Mexico (and let's please not get into the whole Fast & Furious thing - we all know it was a massive screwup, but we also know it doesn't reflect general US policy).

But again, making sure that the people who are purchasing are legal to do so and that they're not going to be gunrunning would go a long way to solving that problem.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineJJJ From Spain, joined May 2006, 1855 posts, RR: 1
Reply 64, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2153 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 21):
I won't even get into rifles. It just about bans every semi-auto matic rifle...or at least the magazines that go into them.

As resident of a country that has capacity limits on long guns for, like, ever it works like that.

Any long gun has a max capacity of 5+1 rounds (target license) or 3+1 (hunting license). If the magazine is detachable it must be sold with a buffer stop that allows only the max capacity. If the magazine is integral to the gun, the buffer must be installed at the time of purchase and everytime the gun is fully assembled.

Even if all papers are OK, possession of a non-limited capacity gun is one of the most serious firearm offences. Depending on the case you can be charged with illegal modification of a weapon or even possession of military hardware. Even the possession of non-limited magazines for guns you don't even have (unless you have a collector license).

Fines can be up to 6.000 euro.

Oddly enough, handguns and 22s aren't limited and though getting a self-defence license is very restrictive (self defence includes concealed carry) a target shooting license for handguns is extremely easy (although you have to attend a number of federated competitions to be able to retain it).


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 65, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 2118 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 61):
And if you even BOTHERED to read what I wrote, no matter WHAT the President is PROPOSING even if it is LINE FOR LINE IDENTICAL to the NY law it ISN'T impacting ANYONE because it ISN'T a law, whereas NY just signed their bill into law so it IS impacting NY citizens right NOW!

What impacts NY State will impact everyone else later on, regardless of State. That's my point. That's what Obama's trying to do on the Federal level.

Understand now????



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12597 posts, RR: 25
Reply 66, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2104 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 65):
Understand now????

I've understood all along, but totally disagree. Understand now???

Here is the logic behind my point of view.

There's been states that have had very restrictive gun laws and states that have had lax gun laws going back decades now.

That reflects the will of the citizens of those states.

The reason there are not restrictive federal laws is that the Members of Congress from those states act against them.

It seems strange to me, if not paranoid, that gun owners in other states are so spooked by what NY just did.

Then again, to go from the logical to the emotional, to me there truly is a streak of paranoia that runs in the "gun nut" community.

Perhaps at some level they realize the idea that they should have unfettered access to assault weapons is ludicrous?

Perhaps at some level they worry that the Members of Congress bought and paid for by the NRA are having a change of heart?

Perhaps they realize the notion that they would act against the government with their puny guns versus tanks, airplanes and artillery is ludicrous?

Maybe that's why they've run out and bought all the assault rifles and clips they can find?

Perhaps that behavior is what convinces other citizens that they are nuts?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7919 posts, RR: 52
Reply 67, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2072 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 63):
And they should use it. They've got a right to be pissed with all the guns that are being bought in the US and smuggled into Mexico (and let's please not get into the whole Fast & Furious thing - we all know it was a massive screwup, but we also know it doesn't reflect general US policy).

I see why there are mad, but to be fair, if you've ever traveled across the border at TIJ you can see a lot of the problem is their doing. I could've had 20 firearms and pounds of drugs but I just walked right it. A simple metal detector would seriously inhibit gun running (among other measures)

Quoting JJJ (Reply 64):
22s

I think the caliber should have an impact. 22s are pretty harmless compared to .50 BMGs



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5470 posts, RR: 14
Reply 68, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2044 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 66):
There's been states that have had very restrictive gun laws and states that have had lax gun laws going back decades now.

As it should be. Let the individual states make their own decisions, based on the will of their citizens. They need to live by those decisions. If a state, like NY, decides to heavily restrict firearms from its law-abiding citizens, full well knowing that PA, VA, KY, TN, GA, TX, WY, AL, AK, AZ, IN, NE, SC, SD, to name a few, do not, that is up to them.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 66):
It seems strange to me, if not paranoid, that gun owners in other states are so spooked by what NY just did.

Same reason that the gun control advocating politicians get spooked as some states loosen their restrictions. Courts, especially at the federal level, will look at various laws in various states in their opinions. If NY's laws stand court scrutiny (and I think they may), they could well be cited elsewhere.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinecptkrell From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3220 posts, RR: 12
Reply 69, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2037 times:

I apologize if someone has previously mentioned this (if so I missed it), but it will be very interesting to see what effect these new laws have on gun crime statistics between now and January, 2014 in NY.

There may be a problem here, though, because after a (admittedly not comprehensive enough right now) search I can't seem to find any real murder-by-gun statistics in NY for 2011. Yet. Perhaps statistics aren't compiled to date? Anyway, I'll bet that there will nary even a slight reduction. , presuppossing figures aren't massaged.

States should have their individual rights, though (as per fr8mech's Reply 68). If the Feds want to get involved let them inact and seriously prosecute interstate illegal trafficking. Then they have a federal offense, but leave the states alone. ...jack



all best; jack
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21654 posts, RR: 55
Reply 70, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2023 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 68):
If a state, like NY, decides to heavily restrict firearms from its law-abiding citizens, full well knowing that PA, VA, KY, TN, GA, TX, WY, AL, AK, AZ, IN, NE, SC, SD, to name a few, do not, that is up to them.

Fine. But then all those states should make sure that guns purchased in those states stay in those states. Otherwise they're just hanging signs that say "we welcome the business of New York's criminals".

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 68):
If NY's laws stand court scrutiny (and I think they may), they could well be cited elsewhere.

Wouldn't make a difference. The fact that GA could copy NY's laws doesn't mean that they will.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7919 posts, RR: 52
Reply 71, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2024 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 70):
Fine. But then all those states should make sure that guns purchased in those states stay in those states. Otherwise they're just hanging signs that say "we welcome the business of New York's criminals".

     

Quoting Mir (Reply 70):
Wouldn't make a difference. The fact that GA could copy NY's laws doesn't mean that they will.

Lol I highly doubt GA will copy NY's law



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineGSPflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 369 posts, RR: 0
Reply 72, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1997 times:

I don't get this all out war on "assault" rifles, I really don't. There are around 400 murders per year with rifles. A ban on "assault" rifles will do very little or nothing to reduce murder or violent crime, while wasting money and other valuable resources to enforce the ban. Also, they can be functionally the same as a semi-automatic "hunting" rifle, but because the "hunting" rifle has a wooden stock, it is exempt from such a ban. The term "military style" is annoying too, nearly every type of weapon was designed for military use.

Quoting dragon-wings (Thread starter):
•Bans possession of any high-capacity magazines regardless of when they were made or sold. Only clips able to hold up to seven rounds can be sold in the state. Clips able to hold seven to 10 rounds can be possessed, but cannot be loaded with more than seven rounds. If an owner is found to have eight or more bullets in a magazine, he or she could face a misdemeanor charge.

Useless, most shooters will either leave before they fire off that many rounds to begin with, or bring extra magazines.

Quoting dragon-wings (Thread starter):
•Requires ammunition dealers to do background checks, similar to those for gun buyers. Dealers are required to report all sales, including amounts, to the state. Internet sales of ammunition are allowed, but the ammunition will have to be shipped to a licensed dealer in New York state for pickup.

For ammo? Useless. This only adds hassle for law-abiding citizens to buy ammo. If someone can obtain a gun illegally, it will probably be easier to get ammo illegally.

Quoting dragon-wings (Thread starter):
•Requires creation of a registry of assault weapons. Those New Yorkers who already own such weapons would be required to register their guns with the state.

Useless, see my first paragraph in this post. Also, someone who intends to use one to kill will buy an unregistered one.

Quoting dragon-wings (Thread starter):
•Most controversially, requires any therapist who believes a mental health patient made a credible threat of harming others to report the threat to a mental health director, who would then have to report serious threats to the state Department of Criminal Justice Services. A patient's gun could be taken from him or her, as well.

Reasonable, to an extent. As long as they don't go crazy labeling patients, it can be a good idea.

Quoting dragon-wings (Thread starter):
•Stipulates that stolen guns should be reported within 24 hours.

Reasonable.

Quoting dragon-wings (Thread starter):
•Tightens the state's description of an "assault" weapon. Previous state law defined an assault weapon as having two "military rifle" features, but the new law reduces that specification to just one feature

Useless. Again, every type of firearm was used by military at one point.

Quoting dragon-wings (Thread starter):
•Requires background checks for all gun sales, including by private dealers -- except for sales to members of the seller's immediate family.

Reasonable, as long as it doesn't become inconvenient. It's a good idea if the citizens can get a background check done for cheap (or free) and quickly. If it is a process that costs $50+ like some dealers charge, and takes more than a few weeks to process, people will resort to illegal sales so they don't have to deal with the hassle.


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5470 posts, RR: 14
Reply 73, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1992 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 70):
Fine. But then all those states should make sure that guns purchased in those states stay in those states. Otherwise they're just hanging signs that say "we welcome the business of New York's criminals".


So, what you're saying is that NY should be able to dictate to other states what laws they should enact.

Again, if NY, or any other state, wishes to restrict firearm sales (or any other harmful product, for that matter) they need to understand and live with the fact that other states may not follow suit. And, they need to plan for the consequences.

It's like an argument I have with a teacher friend of mine about the lack of some parents' involvement in their kids' education. You know that the lack of parental involvement exists...it is a known issue....you can't use it as an excuse...you need to plan around the parent(s) not being involved.

NY State needs to plan around the other states' lack of fear of their own populace.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21654 posts, RR: 55
Reply 74, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1977 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 73):
So, what you're saying is that NY should be able to dictate to other states what laws they should enact.

To the extent of making sure that the effect of the laws don't bleed over into other states, yes. Nothing more.

Otherwise, the state with the most lenient gun laws gets to, in effect, set the gun laws for criminals of the country. We all agree that criminals with guns is a problem, why do we just accept some states aiding and abetting that problem?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 73):
It's like an argument I have with a teacher friend of mine about the lack of some parents' involvement in their kids' education. You know that the lack of parental involvement exists...it is a known issue....you can't use it as an excuse...you need to plan around the parent(s) not being involved.

But that mentality is just giving the parents a cop-out. If you're just going to shrug and say "parents are just irresponsible, you have to deal with it", that gives no incentive for the parents to become more responsible, and it puts the blame on the teacher for a problem that's not of their own creation.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 73):
NY State needs to plan around the other states' lack of fear of their own populace.

Or, other states need to take some responsibility for their own recklessness (and yes, that's what not keeping track of who's buying guns and where they're selling them on to is). If your next-door neighbors are having a party and stuff keeps coming over the fence and into your own backyard, would your first reaction be "well, I guess I have to pay out of my own pocket to make the fence higher"? Because my first reaction would be to call the police to get them to stop and keep their party in their own yard.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5470 posts, RR: 14
Reply 75, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1977 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 74):
To the extent of making sure that the effect of the laws don't bleed over into other states, yes. Nothing more.


So, NY does get to tell other states what to do.

Quoting Mir (Reply 74):
If your next-door neighbors are having a party and stuff keeps coming over the fence and into your own backyard,


A little but different, but my neighbor does not have a constitutional right to throw shit in my yard. My state does happen to have a constitutional right to enact laws as they see fit (and are constitutional), much like NY has a right to enact whatever law they see fit.

Quoting Mir (Reply 74):
call the police


That would be the federal government in this discussion, wouldn't it?

Quoting Mir (Reply 74):
Or, other states need to take some responsibility for their own recklessness


So, once again, NY gets to dictate policy to other states.

What you're saying is that other states need to enact stricter control laws because NY does not trust its populace with guns and has some of the strictest gun control in the country.

That's fine....just come out and say it...NY should be able to tell other states how to run their business.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 76, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1973 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 65):
What impacts NY State will impact everyone else later on, regardless of State. That's my point. That's what Obama's trying to do on the Federal level.


I really don't think it will go that way...I see other states observing NY and gearing up to avoid the issue at Cuomo's level. I also see Cuomo possibly posturing himself to score some campaign points for 2016. During the elections recent, their were murmurings of potentially becoming a contendor. Cuomo has been a very silent governor until H/Sandy, now this. As with most NY politicians whatever they do is either for the money or the votes. I don't mean to minimize the obvious tragedy and while I am a 2nd amendment proponent, something needs to be addressed here but I don't think it is guns.

What Obama is trying to do at the federal level is , well, just another Obama muscle flex...attaching your doctor reports to a data base to scrutinize your sanity...ie: ability or right to own or not own a gun is a very slippery slope and in my opinion give once again, the government too much leverage over private citizens. Obviously sane citizens are not the problem, so spend the $$$ looking into school records at troublesome students, police reports and re peat offenders. social services that have broken families in their books that depict individuals with flagged behavior, arrest records, warrants, etc. No one is looking their direction with these new regs...      


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21654 posts, RR: 55
Reply 77, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1973 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 75):
That would be the federal government in this discussion, wouldn't it?

It would. And it's a step I'd advocate taking. As I said before, the standards for confirming identity and eligibility for purchase of a firearm or ammunition, as well as the mechanisms in place to catch straw purchasers and those making illegal sales, should be federal. I have no problem with everything else being left up to the states.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 75):
What you're saying is that other states need to enact stricter control laws because NY does not trust its populace with guns and has some of the strictest gun control in the country.

Other states need to enact stricter control laws because their guns are showing up at our crime scenes. That's what it boils down to. "Fear of a populace" doesn't enter into it.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5470 posts, RR: 14
Reply 78, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1966 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 77):
"Fear of a populace" doesn't enter into it.


Yes, it does. NY has strict gun laws because the the politicians, for whatever reason fear their citizens having guns. It has been shown nationwide, that loosening restrictions on guns does not cause an increase in violent crime. If it did, we would be swimming in blood and the violent crime rate would sky-rocket and it hasn't.

Again, if NY wants to do that, they are free to do so, but, they need to accept that they are the minority in this and can not expect the rest of the country to bow to their demands.

Quoting Mir (Reply 77):
As I said before, the standards for confirming identity and eligibility for purchase of a firearm


Those are already federal. When you buy a gun from an FFL you fill out an ATF Form 4473. And, I've said before that I am not opposed to those engaged in private transactions being required to provide either an carry permit or firearm ID or a certification that they are not prohibited from buying a firearm under USC. But, the requirement can't be burdensome.

Hell, maybe the ATF can set up a self-serve website that allows a seller to get a yes or no answer, instantly.

But, that doesn't fix NY's problem. They want full registration and I'm not willing to go down that road.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineGeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 79, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1949 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 13):
The law is worthless without federal action. Frankly, it's time to ban ALL sales of semiautomatic weapons nationally and start rounding them in. Only law enforcement and military should have access to such weapons, which should NEVER go home with personnel. When these weapons are simply unavailable, then criminals will not have them because they will not be available to have.

All of which you will never see in your lifetime. (Also.........I sure hope you know more about medicine than you know about guns......)


I'll tell you what this "law" indicates to me; that New York State would be a GREAT place to see a major decline in it's population; before you start calling me "nuts".........how may on here really know ANYTHING about New York State ?
How many big cities in NY State are you really familiar with ?

I spent more than 30 years going to cities ALL OVER New York State; here's what I noticed; Upstate New York had many great cities back in the 50's and 60's; many businesses that had been started there, many people making high wages, everything was good; until the liberals who have always run New York started raising the taxes, making it one of the hardest states in the U.S. to profitably operate a business; so what happened was inevitable; most of the major businesses moved "down south", and THOUSANDS of New Yorkers had to learn to survive on minimum wage jobs (if they were lucky), and NO JOB if they weren't lucky. The people running New York have done MANY stupid things; here's a good example; Ever hear of Salamanca, New York ? They have a most unusual "situation" in Salamanca; the whole town doesn't belong to the people who live there ! They just "rent" the space their houses are on, on a 100 year "lease" from an Indian tribe. U.S. Route 17 goes right past Salamanca; back in the 80's, New York State was in the process of a major "upgrade" on U.S. Route 17, to make it all controlled access, divided, four lane highway; the problem being, about a 30 mile stretch of U.S. 17 (from Salamanca east to (the name of the town escapes my memory at the moment), isn't "in" the United States ! It's "in"......"The Seneca Nation" ! And the Senecas told the politicians in Albany that "you can't build a 4 lane highway through OUR "Nation"! So for a few years, that 30 mile stretch was a 2 lane, zig zag goat path along side of a beautiful river. It's actually kind of humorous now, just thinking back about how stupid it all was when I had to go across Rt. 17 all the time; the stretch going through the Indian Territory was pretty "wild"; they even had bears; Unfortunately, one of our drivers ran over one of the Indian's black bears, ended up spending half of his life going back and forth to New York State (and the "Seneca Nation") to go to court over hitting a damned bear !

But that's nothing; there are lots of surprises in New York State ! On one trip to the far northern part of New York, I was planning to stop at a dinky little truck stop just east of Malone, N.Y. I did stop, but there was not much parking; I don't know exactly how many cars the New York State Police have, but on this day, I could have counted all of them, because they were ALL at this dinky little truck stop ! I kid you not.....must have been 500 State Police cars parked ALL OVER the place! I got kind of curious, and asked someone......"what's with all the cop cars ?" Get this; this place is right at the entrance into.........."The Mohawk Nation" ! (and "The Mohawks" were "on the war-path"! )

It seems that certain of the Mohawks had decided to have Casino gambling; but they were "outnumbered" by the rest of the Mohawks who said......."not on MY damned reservation"! And they commenced shooting at each other; the "no gambling" Mohawks then called the N.Y. State Police, (who, as it developed, were somewhat ill-prepared (and less than enthusiastic) about getting in between two "groups" of pissed off Indians who were shooting at each other !

I later found out that it was thought to be all former Gov. Mario Cuomo's fault; (he's the "daddy" of the current "Cuomo" in Albany that's gonna solve all the world's problems by enacting tough gun laws. (And probably causing thousands of gun owner to move to Texas.)

Oh......I forgot.....the 100 year lease in Salamanca..........after a couple of years going there, the 100 years was "up", and the Seneca's were about to "jack up" the rent on everyone's property....(like about 10 times or some ridiculous thing like that). I never did hear how all of that finally turned out. (Only in New York State !)

Charley



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 80, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 1916 times:

Quoting Geezer (Reply 79):
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 13):The law is worthless without federal action. Frankly, it's time to ban ALL sales of semiautomatic weapons nationally and start rounding them in. Only law enforcement and military should have access to such weapons, which should NEVER go home with personnel. When these weapons are simply unavailable, then criminals will not have them because they will not be available to have.

Meanwhile in New Jersey last night a woman holding her child was stabbed 12 times by a 19 year old male while she was shopping in Bed/Bath & Beyond. She is in critical but stable condition. The attack was unprovoked and the perp was not related to the victim...so next I suppose all knives in the NE will be banned...So on the bright side I guess we will only have the ability to eat apple sauce since steak knives will be banned as well...
  


User currently onlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6600 posts, RR: 6
Reply 81, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 1903 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 80):
Meanwhile in New Jersey last night a woman holding her child was stabbed 12 times by a 19 year old male while she was shopping in Bed/Bath & Beyond. She is in critical but stable condition. The attack was unprovoked and the perp was not related to the victim.

With a knife you can not kill 20 people at in 30 seconds..That's the difference.

[Edited 2013-01-18 07:19:46]


Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineOzGlobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 2721 posts, RR: 4
Reply 82, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1894 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 13):
The law is worthless without federal action. Frankly, it's time to ban ALL sales of semiautomatic weapons nationally and start rounding them in.

This was done at Federal level in Australia, not that they ever had anything like the penetration of guns at large, and it was highly successful. They bought up and had an amnesty on illegal assault weapons. Thousand of guns were handed over and the ban then imposed without exception. Still in place.



When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
User currently offlineDiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1559 posts, RR: 3
Reply 83, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1892 times:

Quoting GSPflyer (Reply 72):
I don't get this all out war on "assault" rifles, I really don't. There are around 400 murders per year with rifles.

It's because the gun nazi's are afraid of anything they see as a threat to their continued assault on freedoms. 400 people a year killed by rifle's yet how many are killed each year by hammers? By booze? By knifes? Yet there is no ban on them.

I simply don't get why these people are so dumb. Violent people will do whatever they want to kill people. They'll use whatever the tool of opportunity is.

-DiamondFlyer


User currently offlineDiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1559 posts, RR: 3
Reply 84, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1879 times:

Not that I like to post twice in a row, but I ran across this today. Not sponsored by any organization, company or anything. Just the facts.

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

-DiamondFlyer


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5470 posts, RR: 14
Reply 85, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1868 times:

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 80):
Meanwhile in New Jersey last night a woman holding her child was stabbed 12 times by a 19 year old male while she was shopping in Bed/Bath & Beyond. She is in critical but stable condition.
Quoting mt99 (Reply 81):
With a knife you can not kill 20 people at in 30 seconds..That's the difference.

But, quite possibly, if she were allowed to be armed...NJ, like NY, is a may issue state...she may not have been stabbed 12 times. The outcome could have been very different...for better or worse. But, she wouldn't have been defenseless had she been allowed to carry and chosen to do so.

Queue the what-ifer's.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineGSPflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 369 posts, RR: 0
Reply 86, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1862 times:

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 83):

It's because the gun nazi's are afraid of anything they see as a threat to their continued assault on freedoms. 400 people a year killed by rifle's yet how many are killed each year by hammers? By booze? By knifes? Yet there is no ban on them.

Exactly. I don't even need a background check to buy any of those, only a simple glance at my ID to make sure I'm 21 to buy booze.


User currently offlinelewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3637 posts, RR: 5
Reply 87, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1856 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 85):
But, quite possibly, if she were allowed to be armed...NJ, like NY, is a may issue state...she may not have been stabbed 12 times. The outcome could have been very different...for better or worse. But, she wouldn't have been defenseless had she been allowed to carry and chosen to do so.

So she could just pull her handgun out, while holding a baby and start shooting while in panic in a BB&B that could possibly be full of other customers. Yeah, that would be a very different outcome, probably for the worse.


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5470 posts, RR: 14
Reply 88, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1851 times:

Quoting lewis (Reply 87):
So she could just pull her handgun out, while holding a baby and start shooting while in panic in a BB&B that could possibly be full of other customers. Yeah, that would be a very different outcome, probably for the worse.

Instead, she was left defenseless by The State of New Jersey. The very state that is supposed to protect her.

I am intellectually honest enough to admit that had she been armed, the outcome may not have changed or could have been worse. Are you intellectually honest enough to admit to yourself that the outcome could have changed for the better?

Having the right to arm yourself is all about having more options. What option was she afforded by The State of New Jersey?



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently onlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6600 posts, RR: 6
Reply 89, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1842 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 85):
Queue the what-ifer's.

You are here already. You asked "what if there was a gun?" - well there wasn't. There was a knife. A knife that cannot kill 20 people in 30 seconds. Those are the facts.

What your post other that a huge "what if"?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 85):
But, quite possibly, if she were allowed to be armed...NJ, like NY, is a may issue state...she may not have been stabbed 12 times. The outcome could have been very different...for better or worse. But, she wouldn't have been defenseless had she been allowed to carry and chosen to do

"and chosen" to do so...Wait - are you really blaming her for being stabbed?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineDiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1559 posts, RR: 3
Reply 90, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1839 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 89):
You are here already. You asked "what if there was a gun?" - well there wasn't. There was a knife. A knife that cannot kill 20 people in 30 seconds. Those are the facts.

An airplane can kill 400 people in 30 seconds. Time to ban them too, right?

Those are the facts

-DiamondFlyer

[Edited 2013-01-18 13:48:55]

User currently onlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6600 posts, RR: 6
Reply 91, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1833 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 90):
An airplane can kill 400 people in 30 seconds. Time to ban them too, right?

Those are the facts

Ahh.. but the capability to do this is very limited Can anyone get into the cockpit to make it crash? can you walk into a plane without passing thru security? The federal Government is very involved in air security.

Those are also - the facts

If you want access to a gun - then you should also have to meet some requirements.

[Edited 2013-01-18 13:55:28]


Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 92, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1835 times:

The point here about the woman that was stabbed is not to make the case, she should have been carrying a pistol and that we should revert to the days of the "Wild West", but to better point out senseless murders are going to continue, regardless of gun laws/regs, obviously. This incident involved a knife, an even younger child and another obviously troubled teenager. So IMHO the common thread here is the perp was a mental case, like all the other incidents regardless of weapons used. So he might possibly be another young man on anti depressants, anti anxiety meds, product of a broken home, a repeat offender that no one is tracking, blah, blah blah. As long as the baseline issue is ignored, mental instability for whatever reasons, we will keep reading headlines like this. And the anti gun tsunami will rage on...

User currently onlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6600 posts, RR: 6
Reply 93, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1832 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 92):
but to better point out senseless murders are going to continu

Of course! But not at the 20 people per 30 second rate!



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5470 posts, RR: 14
Reply 94, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1833 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 89):
"and chosen" to do so...Wait - are you really blaming her for being stabbed?

Absolutely not. First: I make the assumption that she is not allowed to carry a gun because she lives in a "may-issue" state. That being the case: she is not afforded the option to carry a gun. That option is taken away from her. And, quite simply, that option is taken from anyone that may have been in a position to help her.

That's what these laws do: they restrict law-abiding citizens from having more options when threatened. They don't place that restraint on the criminal.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently onlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6600 posts, RR: 6
Reply 95, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1827 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 94):
First: I make the assumption that she is not allowed to carry a gun because she lives in a "may-issue

That is a huge assumption. Unless you have proof of this you have no argument.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 94):
That being the case: she is not afforded the option to carry a gun. That option is taken away from her. And, quite simply, that option is taken from anyone that may have been in a position to help her.

Prove that everyone that was "in a position" to help he have been explicitly prevented form carrying a gun. Assumptions, assumption, assumptions...



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineDiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1559 posts, RR: 3
Reply 96, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1823 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 91):

Ahh.. but the capability to do this is very limited Can anyone get into the cockpit to make it crash? can you walk into a plane without passing thru security? The federal Government is very involved in air security.

Sure, but the fed's are already involved in what you can and can't buy for a gun. You can't just go out and buy an Assault Rifle. You can't just go out and buy silencers. You can't go out and buy anti-tank weapons, you can't go out and buy a grenade today.

-DiamondFlyer


User currently onlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6600 posts, RR: 6
Reply 97, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1815 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 96):

Sure, but the fed's are already involved in what you can and can't buy for a gun. You can't just go out and buy an Assault Rifle. You can't just go out and buy silencers. You can't go out and buy anti-tank weapons, you can't go out and buy a grenade today.

But you can buy guns that kills 20 people in 30 second. Cant you?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineDiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1559 posts, RR: 3
Reply 98, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1814 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 97):
But you can buy guns that kills 20 people in 30 second. Cant you?

You can buy an airplane or bus that will kill 20 people in 30 seconds too.

I said it before and I'll say it again. You simply cannot go out and buy an assault rifle on a moments notice.

-DiamondFlyer

[Edited 2013-01-18 14:58:16]

User currently onlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6600 posts, RR: 6
Reply 99, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1808 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 98):
You can buy an airplane or bus that will kill 20 people in 30 seconds too.

For both; you need certifications from the government that you know how to operate before you get to drive them - specially airplanes,.

And yes -(ill help you) - you can poison a birthday cake and kill 30 people at a party in one go.

You can always come up with "something" terrible.. Point being; just because there are no limits to imagination - should we not try to curve gun violence to the extent possible?

Should we stop cancer care because 1 person did not pull thru?



Step into my office, baby
User currently onlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6600 posts, RR: 6
Reply 100, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1807 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 98):
I said it before and I'll say it again. You simply cannot go out and buy an assault rifle on a moments notice.

How long did Lanza own his weapons for? did he buy it on a moments notice?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29802 posts, RR: 58
Reply 101, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1807 times:

Turns out in the rush to push this crappy legislate Andrew forgot to include an exemption for cops, SO they are supposed to be under the same rules as the rest of New Yorkers...7 rounds only.

Of course he has already come out and said cops don't have to follow the law like the rest of us. Definitely reinforces my lack of faith in equally applying the law.

[Edited 2013-01-18 15:24:19]


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineDiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1559 posts, RR: 3
Reply 102, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1808 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 99):
Should we stop cancer care because 1 person did not pull thru?

Your crusade against cancer doesn't infringe on my rights. Your crusade against guns does. Am I willing to support some basic things, yes. In fact, I don't think anything that the president came out with in his executive orders is bad at all. Any kind of ban like NY just ramrodded is.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 100):
How long did Lanza own his weapons for? did he buy it on a moments notice?

He stole them. Doesn't matter, none of the weapons he used was an assault rifle.

-DiamondFlyer


User currently offlinelewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3637 posts, RR: 5
Reply 103, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1806 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 88):

Instead, she was left defenseless by The State of New Jersey. The very state that is supposed to protect her.

No she was not. If there was an officer close-by and did not answer the calls for help or just stood there and watched, then you would have a point. Unless you are suggesting that we either all have a police escort wherever we go or a gun as an alternative. Maybe we should do away with the police completely, after all, they are not protecting the American public in a satisfying manner if so many people feel the need to carry a gun around for self protection.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 88):
Are you intellectually honest enough to admit to yourself that the outcome could have changed for the better?

Sure, there are infinite number of outcomes from that situation. Changing for the better would assume many things, including:

-The woman would have to keep her calm at all times.
-The woman would have enough time to pull out her gun from her purse while holding her baby and maybe the things she had already picked from the store before being attacked.
-The woman would be able to aim successfully while holding a baby in her hands.
-The bullet (if fired) would only hit the attacker and not anybody else who would be standing nearby.

Of course it is possible but highly unlikely.


User currently offlinecptkrell From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3220 posts, RR: 12
Reply 104, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1798 times:

DiamondFlyer; thanks for your Rep 84. I hope everyone will access this site you provided.. I, for one, knew most of these facts piecemeal, but seeing them presented in a quick, easy-read is good. regards...jack


all best; jack
User currently offlineDiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1559 posts, RR: 3
Reply 105, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1795 times:

Quoting cptkrell (Reply 104):
DiamondFlyer; thanks for your Rep 84. I hope everyone will access this site you provided.. I, for one, knew most of these facts piecemeal, but seeing them presented in a quick, easy-read is good. regards...jack

Nothing bothers me more than people who want to ban this, that and the other, but really have no knowledge of what they are talking about. Shockingly (perhaps not), the biggest issue here is lack of education.

-DiamondFlyer


User currently onlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6600 posts, RR: 6
Reply 106, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1778 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 102):
Your crusade against cancer doesn't infringe on my rights. Your crusade against guns does. Am I willing to support some basic things, yes. In fact, I don't think anything that the president came out with in his executive orders is bad at all. Any kind of ban like NY just ramrodded is.

Let me ask you something... Does the fact that you cannot buy a nuclear power submarine infiringr on your rights?

Does the fact that you cannot buy an apache helicopter?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 107, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1773 times:

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 83):
It's because the gun nazi's are afraid of anything they see as a threat to their continued assault on freedoms. 400 people a year killed by rifle's yet how many are killed each year by hammers? By booze? By knifes? Yet there is no ban on them.

The wast majority of homicides are with guns.

There are plenty of restrictions on alcohol. And unlike what you're trying to propose there isn't a suggestion for banning weapons.

I have no idea how many are killed with hammers per year. I know it is a small number compared to the number killed by weapons. I also know hammers have far more daily practical use.

If you don't understand the differences then you're not qualified to handle weapons.


User currently offlineDiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1559 posts, RR: 3
Reply 108, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1768 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 107):

I have no idea how many are killed with hammers per year. I know it is a small number compared to the number killed by weapons. I also know hammers have far more daily practical use.

More people are killed with hammers and clubs than they are with rifles. If you want to make a meaningful impact on crime, ban pistols, not long guns. But no, nobody is for that, because pistols aren't "big scary guns to soccer mom's who are too stupid to think for themselves".

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ass...hs-statistics/2013/01/03/id/469982

-DiamondFlyer


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 109, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1764 times:

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 108):
More people are killed with hammers and clubs than they are with rifles. If you want to make a meaningful impact on crime, ban pistols, not long guns. But no, nobody is for that, because pistols aren't "big scary guns to soccer mom's who are too stupid to think for themselves".
http://www.statisticbrain.com/murder-weapon-statistics/

In 2009 67% of all homicides where by guns. Trying to reduce it to rifles is dishonest.

But I agree, and have repeatedly stated, that handguns is a bigger problem. I have also stated that poor gun handling is responsible for more deaths than mass-murders.


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5470 posts, RR: 14
Reply 110, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1761 times:

Quoting lewis (Reply 103):
No she was not.

Yes, she was. If the law prevents her from legally obtaining a firearm, then the state has limited her options.

We all know, I hope we do, that the police do not have a duty to protect us. They pick up the pieces.

Quoting lewis (Reply 103):
Sure, there are infinite number of outcomes from that situation. Changing for the better would assume many things, including:

But, she was not even afforded the opportunity to do that, was she?

What about other folks that may have been in a better position to intervene?

You can what-if it to death, as we have, but the bottom line is that NJ restricts its citizens from carrying handguns. In fact, the applicant will not get a permit unless he "Has demonstrated a justifiable need to carry a handgun".

So, this woman, or anyone around her, were hampered by state law from even having the option to carry a firearm for self-defense.

Here's what a private citizen has to show in order to prove "justifiable need" in The State of New Jersey:

1. In the case of a private citizen shall specify in detail the urgent necessity for self protection,
as evidenced by specific threats or previous attacks which demonstrate a
special danger to the applicant's life that cannot be avoided by means other than by
issuance of a permit to carry a handgun. Where possible the applicant shall corroborate
the existence of any specific threats or previous attacks by reference to reports of such
incidents to the appropriate law enforcement agencies;



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineDiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1559 posts, RR: 3
Reply 111, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1756 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 109):
In 2009 67% of all homicides where by guns. Trying to reduce it to rifles is dishonest.

How is it though? All the politicians want an AWB redo, which more or less bans long guns, with few restrictions on handguns. The way they are going about it is so messed up. Their solution doesn't fix any problem.

-DiamondFlyer


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5470 posts, RR: 14
Reply 112, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1748 times:

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 111):
Their solution doesn't fix any problem

Their "solution" makes them feel good. Their "solution" shows that "THEY ARE DOING SOMETHING".



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7308 posts, RR: 8
Reply 113, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1741 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 13):
The law is worthless without federal action. Frankly, it's time to ban ALL sales of semiautomatic weapons nationally and start rounding them in. Only law enforcement and military should have access to such weapons, which should NEVER go home with personnel. When these weapons are simply unavailable, then criminals will not have them because they will not be available to have.

Introducing bans in an open society is difficult if not impossible, a number of drugs are illegal and banned from possession and the drug trade is a billion dollar business which continues to flourish.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 13):
The illegal weapons will simply cross borders from places where they are legal and wind up in the hands of criminals.

Include international borders also.

Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 33):
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 22):
Better not be public.

I can't imagine it would be. Even I would be against that.
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 35):
But, isn't that what just happened in NY. The names and addresses of gun permit holders were given to a newspaper under a FOIA request. The paper than went onto publish said names and addresses on a really cool interactive map.

Hence the reason why many people feel that no register is safer, are there any protections against a publishing business obtaining social security numbers and publishing them, if tere are why not apply such protections to a gun registry?


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5470 posts, RR: 14
Reply 114, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1720 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 113):
Hence the reason why many people feel that no register is safer, are there any protections against a publishing business obtaining social security numbers and publishing them, if tere are why not apply such protections to a gun registry?

It probably varies from state to state. For instance, in my state, it appears that permit information can not be released to anybody but a law enforcement agency and only when that agency makes a specific request for on a specific person. Apparently, that's not the case NY.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineN867DA From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1008 posts, RR: 0
Reply 115, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1718 times:

Look, if more guns really do reduce crime, then why does the United States lead the developed world in gun-related homicides? Sure, one may say they're just mostly crackheads shooting each other...but does France not have crackheads? In general, you can pick up a copy of Grand Theft Auto anywhere in the world, and while our mental health care is not the greatest in the world I seriously doubt that alone is responsible for our absurdly high murder rate. After 200 odd years, the cat is out of the bag, and you can't "unring the bell"--guns are an unfortunate fact of Americana, and no group will have the political strength (or will) to fix the problem. We can only watch this country become like a banana republic with armed guards in all corners to protect us.

Ah, freedom!

I know there are dozens of millions of safe, responsible gun owners who would balk at the idea of doing any harm with their weapons, and am sure that guns have saved lives in burglaries and whatnot. I don't mean to vilify these perfectly sane gun owners. But fixing the 'gun violence' issue however is going to take decades, and reducing the supply and ease of access to guns will be a part of the solution--if it's not an impossible thing to do right now.



A nation turns its lonely eyes to you
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 116, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1703 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 110):
Yes, she was. If the law prevents her from legally obtaining a firearm, then the state has limited her options.

No she wasn't. Weapons are not the only form of defense.

But you are continuing your fear mongering. Reality is that no matter what we do there will still be some occurrences. The question is how least innocent are killed and injured. Statistics from other developed nations makes it abundantly clear that their methods are more successful.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 111):
How is it though? All the politicians want an AWB redo, which more or less bans long guns, with few restrictions on handguns. The way they are going about it is so messed up. Their solution doesn't fix any problem.

1) Long guns are not being banned.
2) Yes, the situation is messed up. Especially that it is impossible to do more than a patch work like this is.
3) While I agree this doesn't address all or even the biggest problem I do not understand how you can even suggest it doesn't fix any problem. I find that statement representative of why the right things do not happen.

Quoting par13del (Reply 113):
Introducing bans in an open society is difficult if not impossible, a number of drugs are illegal and banned from possession and the drug trade is a billion dollar business which continues to flourish.

No it is not. Getting 100% compliance is. We don't expect locks to prevent every home invasion but we are happy about all they do stop.

Quoting N867DA (Reply 115):
Look, if more guns really do reduce crime, then why does the United States lead the developed world in gun-related homicides?

  
Importantly, not just gun related, total too.

Quoting N867DA (Reply 115):
the cat is out of the bag

The cat can be put back in the bag.


User currently offlinecws818 From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1176 posts, RR: 2
Reply 117, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1702 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 34):
Ignorant you are, yes.
Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 34):
Your entire post is ignorant and flamebait-ish which shouldn't warrant a response from anyone. You don't need to come off like a jackass.   

Have you ever heard the old saying "you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar"?

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 34):
Your entire post is ignorant and flamebait-ish which shouldn't warrant a response from anyone. You don't need to come off like a jackass.   
Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 37):
Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 36):
I am an American (born here, lived here my whole life).

Well, hot damn! You could have avoided the response I gave you by changing that flag of yours that currently shows "Switzerland". That is also why you got the response you got from me. That is your own damn fault. Quit misrepresenting yourself saying you are from Switzerland when you really are not. That will solve some of the confusions here, especially on threads like this.

ANITIX87 can choose whatever flag he likes. You don't have to disrespect him because of that choice.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 42):
Quoting mt99 (Reply 40):
You are so calm and rational.. you reminded me of him.

Uh, yeah sure... pick on the deaf guy.   

Being deaf does not give you carte blanche to be rude.



volgende halte...Station Hollands Spoor
User currently offlineImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2617 posts, RR: 23
Reply 118, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1681 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 6):
That does not keep a criminal from getting his/her gun illegally.

Exactly.
Chicago has some of the toughest gun regulation in the U.S. yet they managed about 500 murders in 2012.
Seriously? 500 murders? Why hasn't the National Guard been brought in to try to restore some order to that cesspool?
Do a sundown to sunup lockdown if they have to. Roadblocks everywhere. Find the criminals with illegal guns and throw them in jail. Then the hard part of getting the Judges to keep them in jail instead of giving them a slap on the wrist.
Of course it's "We the People" who get to pay for all this.



"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2738 posts, RR: 8
Reply 119, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 1652 times:

Quoting N867DA (Reply 115):
Look, if more guns really do reduce crime, then why does the United States lead the developed world in gun-related homicides?

Because a majority of these are drug related or gang crimes. How many of these are done with legally obtained firearms?

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 118):
Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 6):That does not keep a criminal from getting his/her gun illegally.Exactly.Chicago has some of the toughest gun regulation in the U.S. yet they managed about 500 murders in 2012.Seriously? 500 murders? Why hasn't the National Guard been brought in to try to restore some order to that cesspool?

Gang banging and drug related death's. But let us limit the 60 to 80 million plus lawful citizens. What a joke.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineN867DA From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1008 posts, RR: 0
Reply 120, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 1650 times:

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 118):
Chicago has some of the toughest gun regulation in the U.S. yet they managed about 500 murders in 2012.
Seriously? 500 murders? Why hasn't the National Guard been brought in to try to restore some order to that cesspool?

This only works if the supply of guns is limited nationally. Chicago can do all it wants but as long as people can drive to Indiana to buy whatever they want and return to Chicago the same day, it will be somewhat ineffective.



A nation turns its lonely eyes to you
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 121, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1647 times:

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 118):
Chicago has some of the toughest gun regulation in the U.S. yet they managed about 500 murders in 2012.

Oklahoma has very lax gun regulation, only 2 points for not forcing collages to allow weapons out of 100 potential points, yet had almost the same 2012 murder rate as Chicago.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 119):
Because a majority of these are drug related or gang crimes. How many of these are done with legally obtained firearms?

Almost all of them come from a "law abiding" gun owners.

[Edited 2013-01-19 07:54:24]

User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21654 posts, RR: 55
Reply 122, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1627 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 78):
Those are already federal. When you buy a gun from an FFL you fill out an ATF Form 4473.

But then there are all the various state rules on where you can do if you want to buy a gun but don't want to do a background check. Those need to be uniform as well.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 78):
nd, I've said before that I am not opposed to those engaged in private transactions being required to provide either an carry permit or firearm ID or a certification that they are not prohibited from buying a firearm under USC. But, the requirement can't be burdensome.

It should not be any more burdensome than a background check at an FFL, no.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 78):
They want full registration and I'm not willing to go down that road.

Doesn't even have to be full registration - just keep a record of the sale and use that if the weapons shows up in the wrong hands.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 110):
If the law prevents her from legally obtaining a firearm, then the state has limited her options.

Do we know that she applied for a gun permit but was denied? Because if not, then that entire argument is just silly speculation.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 119):
Because a majority of these are drug related or gang crimes. How many of these are done with legally obtained firearms?

All of them. Unless you're suggesting that drug groups and gangs are making their own weapons, those weapons are sold legally. At least they are at first, and after that we don't have any idea what happens to them. And it should be evident to anyone that that's a huge problem.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1559 posts, RR: 3
Reply 123, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1584 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 116):
1) Long guns are not being banned.

No, but a vast majority of the guns mentioned by name in the proposed AWB are long guns. Which, aren't responsible for nearly any of the gun deaths in the country every year.

-DiamondFlyer


User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 124, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1571 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 93):
Of course! But not at the 20 people per 30 second rate!

Suicide bombers here in the US...they are not far off. Results will be better than 20/30seconds...just wait.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 125, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1566 times:

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 123):
No, but a vast majority of the guns mentioned by name in the proposed AWB are long guns. Which, aren't responsible for nearly any of the gun deaths in the country every year.

Your claim was that it was, more or less a ban on long guns. And while I agree they are not the biggest problem they are a sizable problem.

It isn't that we shouldn't deal with them. It is that we should deal with handguns too.


User currently onlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6600 posts, RR: 6
Reply 126, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1550 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 124):
Suicide bombers here in the US...they are not far off. Results will be better than 20/30seconds...just wait.

And are Suicide Bombers legal?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 110):
If the law prevents her from legally obtaining a firearm, then the state has limited her options.

"If"? how do you know that the case. Maybe she chose not to have a weapon.

Quoting Mir (Reply 122):
Do we know that she applied for a gun permit but was denied? Because if not, then that entire argument is just silly speculation.

Exactly...



Step into my office, baby
User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12597 posts, RR: 25
Reply 127, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1533 times:

Quoting N867DA (Reply 115):
But fixing the 'gun violence' issue however is going to take decades, and reducing the supply and ease of access to guns will be a part of the solution--if it's not an impossible thing to do right now.

It also takes a willingness to consider any/all options, such as trying to increase the protections built into the weapon.

Was listening to a show saying that biometrics (mostly fingerprint readers) integrated with guns are quite good at insuring that only designated people can use that gun. Make the timeout period reasonably long, like 8-24 hours so the gun owner doesn't have to keep swiping every few minutes, yet short enough so that a thief can't do unlimited damage.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 78):
They want full registration and I'm not willing to go down that road.

Why not? That'd put a big bite into the problem of misuse of guns, just like license plates put a big bite into the problem of misuse of automobiles.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29802 posts, RR: 58
Reply 128, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1500 times:

License plates where never intended to prevent misuse.

They are simply to show that taxes on the car have npbeen paid.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlinejetmech From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 2699 posts, RR: 53
Reply 129, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1491 times:

So unfortunately, a teenager yet again commits a multiple firearm homicide which again has children as victims.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/201...en-held-in-shooting-of-five-people

I wonder what the sad details of this one are? Was the gun an "illegal" one owned by a "criminal" that seems to get all the attention from the pro-gun side, or is it once again, a perfectly "legal" firearm that became "illegal" in the heat of the moment?

Regards, JetMech

[Edited 2013-01-20 15:33:13]


JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair.
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5470 posts, RR: 14
Reply 130, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1443 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 122):
But then there are all the various state rules on where you can do if you want to buy a gun but don't want to do a background check. Those need to be uniform as well.

State rules do not trump federal rules on firearms purchase. If you buy a gun from an FFL, you fill out the form. All, the various state rules do are restrict who can buy (what level of permit is required to purchase) and what you can buy (quantity and type).

Quoting Mir (Reply 122):
Doesn't even have to be full registration - just keep a record of the sale and use that if the weapons shows up in the wrong hands.

There is already a recod of sale to the original owner. That record is maintained by the retailer. The guns only get "lost" during private transfers. They get picked up again whenever they pass through an FFL's hands again, e.g. a pawn broker.

Quoting Mir (Reply 122):
Do we know that she applied for a gun permit but was denied? Because if not, then that entire argument is just silly speculation.

Of course it's speculation. But, according to NJ laws, she would basically have to have been a victim of continuing violence or under threat of such violence to qualify.

Quoting cmf (Reply 116):
No she wasn't. Weapons are not the only form of defense.

Correct, but it may have been the only that could have been available to her. And, the state has made the task of getting a concealed weapons permit so onerous, getting a permit really isn't an option. The state has taken that option of self-defense away from her.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: being allowed to carry a firearm just provides additional options in the unlikely event of an attack.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 126):
"If"? how do you know that the case. Maybe she chose not to have a weapon.

And, that would be her choice. Right now, it's the state's choice.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 131, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks ago) and read 1438 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 130):
I've said it before and I'll say it again: being allowed to carry a firearm just provides additional options in the unlikely event of an attack.

It does. Problem is all the different dangers they pose for that unlikely event. Especially since experience (statistics) show you are more likely to experience the problems.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Your New Local Laws Effective 1 July posted Mon Jun 30 2008 17:51:00 by SAN787
Uruguay Passes Gay Civil Partnership Laws posted Thu Dec 20 2007 14:17:29 by Braybuddy
Finally Got To Shoot My New Guns posted Tue Feb 13 2007 17:31:30 by KaiGywer
Finally Got To Shoot My New Guns posted Tue Feb 13 2007 17:29:13 by KaiGywer
New Japanese Laws Roll Back Pacifist Measures posted Sat Dec 16 2006 13:55:14 by Aaron747
UK Govt. To Intruduce New Terrorism Laws posted Thu Jul 14 2005 13:26:22 by Lazyshaun
Tough New Tactics By U.S. In Iraq posted Sun Dec 7 2003 10:14:43 by Zak
New Terror Laws Used Vs. Common Criminals posted Sun Sep 14 2003 20:08:53 by Jhooper
Katz Deli New York NY posted Sun Mar 8 2009 18:19:41 by AMS
NY Gov Imposes 88+ New Taxes And Fees posted Wed Dec 17 2008 07:39:34 by JakeOrion