New York gun "recall" planned......

[virginia mountainman]

Well folks, since the SKS ban, and confiscation in California back several years ago, looks like New York, is going the same way with some rifles.

Also, passing the NY general assembly, a host of other total bullshit laws..

New regulations for buying bullets where the purchaser would be required to fill out an application that would include the make, model and manufacturer of the firearm the bullets are intended for.

Requiring manufacturers to use an ammunition coding system for all handgun and assault rifle ammunition sold in New York State.

The renewal of firearm licenses every five years.

Limiting the purchase of all shells to 100 rounds every 90 days

Ban the sale, use or possession of 50-caliber or larger weapons, and creates a
program to "recall" those currently legally owned

Protect the safety of law enforcement personnel by prohibiting the sale and ownership
of ammunition designed to fragment or explode upon impact and pierce body armor (Watch out hunters, with center fire rifles....)

http://blog.syracuse.com/outdoors/2009/04/state_assembly_expected_to_pas.html

http://nordwave.net/new-york/?p=54

http://www.rnews.com/Story_2004.cfm?ID=71558&rnews_story_type=18

[guruoo]

1. Ohboy, here we go...

:popcorn:

[tridim]

2. Bravo New York!

We need more sane gun laws like these from coast to coast.

[havocmom]

3. murder already illegale. Hasn't stopped happening

Why do people think more laws would have impact?

Seriously, no one has explained that yet. All more gun control laws really accomplish is make it harder to get DEMs into office to address the thousands of other important issues.

[tridim]

4. So I take it you don't agree with safer gun and ammunition sales?

I don't see why any responsible gun owner would have a problem with the laws mentioned in the OP. They're reasonable and sane.

I'm starting to believe the gun folks here are really anarchists, they don't want ANY gun laws. That's scary as hell.

[inkool]

6. Please...

explain how any of these laws will affect criminals.

[tridim]

12. Apparently you don't agree with safer gun/ammo sales either

Check.

This attitude is precisely why the NRA is a regressive and dangerous organization. They use lies to convince their members that NO gun laws are reasonable. Fuck them.

[jeepnstein]

15. There you go.

The coarse language you use shows your true colors. You don't care about anyone's rights but your own. How very progressive of you.

[tridim]

16. I care about everyone's right to not get shot.

Including yours.

[jeepnstein]

24. Really?

That's so very nice of you. Do you care about it enough to volunteer to take on street corner drug dealers, 88'rs, career violent felons, and various folks off their medications?

I didn't think so.

[havocmom]

25. Already laws against that. Why do you think more laws would matter?

You do not address that question.

[Hoopla Phil]

110. A criminal intent on serious bodily injury has NO right to NOT get shot. In fact

they have every right to GET shot.

[krispos42]

220. I care about everybody's right to be safe and secure in their person

Part of which means my right to use a weapon to stop such a person from doing it to me and mine.

[havocmom]

23. careful jumping to conclusions. I also dislike & disregard the NRA

Perhaps jogging would be a better form or exercise for you?

[inkool]

26. I think plenty of gun laws are reasonable.

I was asking if you think any of the purposed laws would have an affect on criminals.

What does the NRA have to do with any of this?

[umccoyw]

57. This does nothing to criminals......

These laws basically make it more difficult for people to exercise there 2nd amendment right. I believe the true intent is to cut down on guns and ammunition in NYS. That means legal firearm owners cant buy as much ammo and if each each round has to be traceable that will increase cost of ammunition making it to expensive to purchase. Basically NYS is trying to make it tougher and tougher to buy, own and shoot firearms. Now what would stop criminals from going over a state to buy ammunition there? nothing because we are not going to search all vehicles coming into the state. I live in NY and the only REAL reason they want to renew licenses every 5 years is so they can take more money. If you have a permit here and you get arrested they will take your permit away so what is the need to renew it? what about the people who already have them and paid a lot of money for permit that was supposed to be valid for life unless revoked? Counties within NYS dont even follow the laws in regards to issuing permits. They make you wait longer then the law allows for.

[rl6214]

63. Why can't you answer the question?

Instead you make accusations.

Answer the question, how will any of these laws stop the criminals?

[tridim]

69. I'm not answering because I never made the claim that these laws..

will "stop the criminals".

However, if they stop one murder of an innocent victim they're worth it.

[inkool]

71. So gun laws are...

reasonable if they limit guns on how the look, function, and can possibly save an innocent life.

[tridim]

73. Absolutely

[inkool]

76. That would make any and all...

gun laws reasonable to you. What kind of gun laws would you find to be unreasonable?

[tridim]

82. Let's see, wholesale abolishing of the 2nd amendment would be unreasonable.

Confiscating .22's and shotguns from law abiding citizens would be unreasonable.

Making BB/pellet guns illegal would be unreasonable.

Gun laws that make an attempt to temper the illogical and misguided stockpiling of guns and ammo are reasonable.

[rl6214]

85. Didn't answer my question eslewhere in this thread

Would you want to ban this rifle?

<a href="" target="_blank"><img src="" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

[inkool]

89. But what if...

the 22 looks too close to a machine gun or a sniper rifle. Would it be reasonable to ban it then?

Would it be time to call for a ban of the shotgun if some innocent person were killed by one?

How many guns and how much ammo is a stockpile?

[tridim]

92. There is no reason a .22 should look like an assault weapon.

Shotguns are built specifically for hunting and skeet shooting. They are not built to look more dangerous than they already are.

If you don't see the stockpiling already going on you should probably pay more attention to current events.

[rl6214]

95. "Look more dangerous than they already are"?

Again the looks. I guess looks to kill, huh?

How do looks make one .22 and more dangerous than another?

Your arguement is falling apart?

[tridim]

102. I didn't say an assault style .22 IS more dangerous.

I've always said that no shotgun or rifle NEEDS to be made to look more dangerous specifically for that reason. That's what bling is.

Listen, I understand that some people get a thrill out of firing weapons that look like military issue. I just happen to believe that's a shitty reason to keep these weapons on the streets.

[rl6214]

105. Looks have nothing to do with it

I have had both of my shoulders operated on and have a very difficult time shooting standard straight stock rifles. The pistol grip of an AR type weapon makes it much easier to enjoy my sport. You are equating the what you percieve is the thrill of firing a weapon that looks like military issue to being the reason everyone has to own one. So what if someone enjoys the way it looks. Are you going to put restrictions on pistols because they are black and not nickel or chrome or plastic and not metal.

Your arguement is not only unreasonable, it is ridiculous.

Edit to add:

Can you find any proof to back up this statement? You keep stating or implying this is why people own these "bling" weapons.
" some people get a thrill out of firing weapons that look like military issue."

[Hoopla Phil]

112. Aren't there laws against "arbitrary" laws?

[HALO141]

199. Obviously not.

But even if they were it wouldn't make any difference because laws never apply to those in government.

[tisfortomi]

244. Scary guns are dangerous?

"Listen, I understand that some people get a thrill out of firing weapons that look like military issue. I just happen to believe that's a shitty reason to keep these weapons on the streets."

So you think that public safety will be increased by banning certain weapons for cosmetic reasons? How exactly is that supposed to work?

[inkool]

100. Lots of things look the way they do for no reason...

The question was if the 22 looked like an assault rifle would you be ok with banning that model.

And would it be ok to ban the shotgun or any gun if it could be proven that the ban would save an innocent life.

I know that people are buying guns and ammo in record numbers, the question was how may guns and how much ammo do a stockpile make.

[Caliman73]

179. Shotguns are built for hunting and skeet shooting?

So every police officer is a hunter or skeet shooter? That is why every police patrol car has a shotgun in it? Remington makes the 870 "security special" specifically for law enforcement and home defense. Shotguns are made with pistol grips, folding stocks, and breaching attachments which have nothing to do with hunting and skeet shooting. Shotguns have multiple uses including law enforcement, personal and home defense. When you generalize, you make yourself appear ignorant and decrease the credibility of your arguments. The problem with current events is that the most sensational events often receive the most attention so the picture painted by the media is grossly skewed against the reality of gun ownership. If the media covered all of the stories of responsible gun ownership, then you would have thousands upon thousands of stories everyday of nothing happening or of people using firearms to protect lives.

[Iktomiwicasa]

181. Most cops I know

stop by the duck pond during lunch break

:sarcasm:

[tridim]

184. For the citizenry, yes.

I shudder to think what other uses you've discovered.

[rl6214]

189. Home DE-FENSE

[HALO141]

201. So you think yourself qualified to be

the arbiter of what other people need? By virtue of what, your superior morality or simple opinion?

Interesting.

[dairydog91]

208. Ventilating burglars comes to mind. nt

Though I suppose the multiple-thousand-dollar over-under shotguns don't get used for anything except duck hunts.

[Caliman73]

212. SO when you are proven wrong you just dodge and insinuate?

That is the strategy of those incapable of defending their position rationally. My shotgun is used for both target shooting and home defense. I have a Maverick 500 combo shotgun with the long barrel for target shooting and hunting (which I don't do) and the short barrel for home defense (which I am hoping never to have to, but am prepared to do).

Instead of making dumb insinuations and dancing around the argument why not have a coherent argument. You say you support the 2nd amendment but you want it practiced in a way where you will feel completely safe. There is no such thing as complete safety when humans are involved unless you want to curtail all human behavior that poses a risk to our safety.

[HALO141]

197. You've obviously overlooked the simple fact that...

an AR-15/M-16/M-4/etc.... They ARE 22's!

[michreject]

215. Correct nt

[SecularNATION]

106. Stockpiling.

Confiscating AR-15 semi automatic rifles would be unreasonable, as well. So could confiscating .50 rifles, especially considering the fact they aren't used in crimes.


So, what's wrong with buying large amounts of ammunition, anyway? Especially if you get a good price buying bulk? Properly stored ammunition can last quite a long time. Considering the fact its price keeps rising and availability is uncertain, why can't someone stock up by purchasing a large amount? And, what IS a "large amount"? What IS a "stockpile"? 1,000 rounds? 10,000? If a person enjoys target shooting, goes to the range every Saturday and shoots 100 rounds, a 1000 round "stockpile" will last exactly 10 weeks. Not much of a stockpile, huh?

[Iktomiwicasa]

183. 100 rounds

per 90 days limit? That's total bullshit. I consider 100 rounds/week the minimum I need to shoot to stay proficient. If I'm using my ammunition in a lawful manner, fuck all if it is any of the governments business how much I buy.

[michreject]

217. I shoot 2000 rounds a month

I shoot IPSC matches every Sunday and practise every Wed. That's about the avg. monthly round count for USPSA/IPSC and some IDPA shooters.

[friendly_iconoclast]

133. But limiting it like Bush did to the Fourth and Fifth is "reasonable"?

Seems like your infringement on the Second Amendment differs little from Bush/Cheney's infringement
on the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

[dairydog91]

135. Ah, but there's a difference.

The 2nd Amendment is more malleable because only dumb rednecks care about guns.

[rl6214]

80. Isn't the purpose of a law

Generally to stop a crime from happening. Stopping the criminals because murder is a crime, you are attempting to stop the criminals by passing a law. Isn't the "murder of an innocent victim" a crime? YOu can't pass a law just because.

[HALO141]

202. That's a quaint notion.

But you haven't been paying attention. Laws USED to be passed for valid, laudable reasons like justice. We ran out of those a long time ago. "Law" is a living thing, doncha know! It changes and evolves! Over the past many years our body of law has mutated into a wretched beast indeed. It's current excuse for existence is as a tool for politicians to consolidate power.

[rl6214]

205. Oh I get the point, I'm with you on this one

I was just saying it in a different way than you.

[Hoopla Phil]

111. You claimed they are "sane". What makes a 100 round per 90 day limit sane?

[HALO141]

195. And what if they

RESULT in the murder of an innocent?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

227. So if Bush torturing people saved one life it was worth it also? I'm glad the founding fathers...

were smart enough to protect our Rights from scared people like you.

David

[gorfle]

237. The precise definition of unreasonable.

I'm not answering because I never made the claim that these laws..will "stop the criminals".

However, if they stop one murder of an innocent victim they're worth it.

This, right here, is why you and your kind have zero credibility for proposing anything "reasonable" concerning firearms.

If your metric for reasonableness is it only needs to stop one murder, there is no point in further discussion, because it's clear that firearms will never, ever, no matter how draconian the restrictions on them become, be safe enough for you that there isn't something else that could be done to "stop one more murder".

Thus it is obvious what the real goal here is.

[one-eyed fat man]

239. but

if gun control laws facilitate the slaughter of defenseless victims, that's OK?

[havocmom]

22. or make us safer

Now, banning cars and pools could save some lives.

[TheWraith]

10. They're not rational at all.

"New regulations for buying bullets where the purchaser would be required to fill out an application that would include the make, model and manufacturer of the firearm the bullets are intended for."

Instead of targeting illegal gun sales where it's long since been proved that most guns used in crime come from, all this does is create an inconvenience for people buying ammo, and create an excuse to harass them. Not to mention at a time when the NYS government already can't afford things like nursing homes for disabled veterans, we're going to add an expensive new layer of databanking?

"Requiring manufacturers to use an ammunition coding system for all handgun and assault rifle ammunition sold in New York State."

This is basically impossible. Period. If you actually passed it as a law it would effectively shut down the production of ammunition because you simply cannot create a traceable chain of custody for every single bullet.

"The renewal of firearm licenses every five years."

The vast majority of firearms used in crimes are already illegally in someone's possession. Thus, the only use of this is to annoy and harass legal owners.

"Limiting the purchase of all shells to 100 rounds every 90 days"

What possible purpose does this have, other than to grossly intrude on people's privacy and limit target shooters? Most criminals are never going to use more than that; the only people who DO are people who use their firearms for target shooting and practice. Police officers, also, would need more than that.

"Ban the sale, use or possession of 50-caliber or larger weapons, and creates a
program to "recall" those currently legally owned"

.50 cal rifles are absolutely unheard of for use in crimes. Period. As such, what possible excuse can you have for wanting to ban them?

"Protect the safety of law enforcement personnel by prohibiting the sale and ownership
of ammunition designed to fragment or explode upon impact and pierce body armor (Watch out hunters, with center fire rifles....)"

Armor piercing ammunition is already illegal in New York State. Fragmenting ammo means every hunting round ever made.

All of this is BS "feel-good" legislation that would not do one damn thing to reduce crime--it's designed by people looking for a press release to feed a constituency that doesn't like guns or gun owners.

[Hangingon]

19. There are several problems.

The limitation of 100 rounds per days does not provide enough ammunition for target practice or competition. What is a .50 caliber rifle under the laws? Does it include black powder weapons. The paperwork required is onerous and provides no true advantages.

[Pullo]

31. Why do you beat your wife? n/t

[Pullo]

35. n/t

[havocmom]

46. Well done

:tumbsup:

[rl6214]

61. Who are you

To say what is sane and reasonable? Are you the conscience of the world? Isn't the purpose of a democratic society to let the voice of the people be heard? The majority of the voting public does not want these laws.

[tridim]

62. Do you have a link to that poll?

Not that I don't believe you.

Even if true, that doesn't mean I can't state my opinion as well.

[X_Digger]

121. Here ya go..

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117361/Recent-Shootings-Gun-Control-Support-Fading.aspx

[tridim]

149. That poll shows a majority do want more strict control of gun sales

Are you sure you meant to post that?

[X_Digger]

150. 49%? Less than a majority? Engrish not first language? n/t

[tridim]

153. 49% > 41%

This is a poll, not an election.

[X_Digger]

158. So it's safe to say..

"More than half of those polled want the same or less restrictions." yes?

[tridim]

161. That's safe to say,

But according to the raw numbers it's 49%-49%.

But still, more people want more restrictions than any other group. Do we not fucking count?

I also wonder how many of those polled know that Bush allowed the AWB to expire?

[X_Digger]

165. Lowest since Gallup started asking in the 50's

If you're for keeping the law the same, you're obviously NOT for more regulation. So the 41+8 = 49

Less than half of respondents want more gun control. What's so hard to swallow about that?

[rl6214]

167. Be truthful

The house and senate allowed the ban to expire. Not defending bush, just being truthful. Why is that so difficult for you.

[X_Digger]

169. The Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security

allowed it to die.. only 1 member out of 15 (there was a rep vacancy at the time) voted to pass it on. 1 out of 15.

[tridim]

174. Fine, Bush and the Republican controlled Congress allowed it to expire..

Even though at the time (according to the graph you provided) 60% of the people wanted more strict gun control laws.

You're certainly not defending Clinton (The Democrat) on this issue.

[X_Digger]

175. I, like Clinton, understand that the AWB lost Congress

to the morons and helped * win in 2000.

Courtesy of benEzra:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x203973#203986

From President Clinton's autobiography My Life, on the 1994 debacle:

"Just before the House vote (on the crime bill), Speaker Tom Foley and majority leader Dick Gephardt had made a last-ditch appeal to me to remove the assault weapons ban from the bill. They argued that many Democrats who represented closely divided districts had already...defied the NRA once on the Brady bill vote. They said that if we made them walk the plank again on the assault weapons ban, the overall bill might not pass, and that if it did, many Democrats who voted for it would not survive the election in November. Jack Brooks, the House Judiciary Committee chairman from Texas, told me the same thing...Jack was convinced that if we didn't drop the ban, the NRA would beat a lot of Democrats by terrifying gun owners....Foley, Gephardt, and Brooks were right and I was wrong. The price...would be heavy casualties among its defenders." (Pages 611-612)

"On November 8, we got the living daylights beat out of us, losing eight Senate races and fifty-four House seats, the largest defeat for our party since 1946....The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you're out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage...." (Pages 629-630)

"One Saturday morning, I went to a diner in Manchester full of men who were deer hunters and NRA members. In impromptu remarks, I told them that I knew they had defeated their Democratic congressman, Dick Swett, in 1994 because he voted for the Brady bill and the assault weapons ban. Several of them nodded in agreement." (Page 699)

--William J. Clinton, My Life

[tridim]

178. Bush "won" in 2000 because the stacked SCOTUS stole the election for him

Period. It's bullshit to blame the AWB or anything else.

[X_Digger]

185. Had Gore..

Had Gore carried either Tennessee, Arkansas or West Virginia- all winnable states- he would not have had to win Florida and he would have become president.

I don't want to destroy the good atmosphere in the room or in the country tonight, but I have to mention one issue that divided this body greatly last year. The last Congress also passed the Brady Bill and, in the crime bill, the ban on 19 assault weapons. I don't think it's a secret to anybody in this room that several members of the last Congress who voted for that aren't here tonight because they voted for it. And I know, therefore, that some of you who are here because they voted for it are under enormous pressure to repeal it. I just have to tell you how I feel about it. -- Bill Clintons 1995 State of the Union

[Pullo]

210. Its BS not to recognize the AWB threw away Democratic majorities in both houses

while causing an previously-unprecedented spike in the type of weapons it sought to ban!

I guess it was worth it to you?

[rl6214]

182. I stand corrected

Rupublican controlled congress. Can I ask what Clinton has to do with the ban not being renewed in 04?

[beevul]

226. Do you not count?

Thats an interesting question.

The answer, is more interesting.

Yes. You count.

However...

Do you gun restriction proponents organize and make a point of sending your elected representatives out on thier ass in the elective sense, when they cross you, over that single issue??

Didn't think so.

"I also wonder how many of those polled know that Bush allowed the AWB to expire?"

About ten tiems as many or more, than actually knew what the AWB actually did. Furthermore, the AWB had built into it, a sunset clause. Congress would have had to put a bill on his desk, and failed to do so. It expired as it was designed and written to do...nobody "let it expire".

[rl6214]

154. 49% down from 78% in 1990

Follow the trend.

[Hoopla Phil]

109. There is nothing reasonable about 100 rounds per 90 days. NOTHING

And what if you use the ammo in a gun other than what you say when filling out the paperwork?

[bossy22]

204. so confiscation is okay?

limiting a gun owner to 100 bullets in 3 months (btw most gun owners shoot more than 100 bullets in one shooting session)

you think these are reasonable....

[krispos42]

219. These aren't safer gun and ammunition sales

It is an attempt to make owing guns and ammuntion so onerous that few people bother. It's the same procedure used by activists to inhibit people from performing an activity that they disapprove of. They throw everything they can at the activity, hoping that they can "compromise" and get some of them to stick.

[Howzit]

224. "It is an attempt to make owing guns and ammunition so onerous that few people bother"

The question is, why? What are they trying to accomplish?

[krispos42]

231. Because guns are uncultered, uncivilized

Guns are symbolic of failure to achieve a laudable goal such as peace and harmony, or a failure to resolve a conflict peacefully.

Because guns might be used before all other non-violent options are expended.

Because violence is always inheirently bad, that it has no redeeming value.

Because it is felt to be disturbing, dangerous, and antithetical to a civilized society that people can contemplate, study, practice, and own hardware designed for projecting lethal force onto the human body. And especially owning that hardware without government oversight.

Therefore violence and the symbols and tools thereof must be stamped out whenever possible.

[Howzit]

232. "Therefore violence and the symbols and tools thereof must be stamped out whenever possible."

And this "stamping out" is to be achieved by means of an armed police force and other armed government agencies?

Why is it that those who proclaim the merits of disarming the masses have their own armed security guards? Let all politicians and celebrities who proclaim the merits of disarmament show good faith and give up their armed guards first. It seems as if these people feel that the average person cannot be trusted with lethal force, but somehow we should trust them with lethal force.

In my opinion, anyone who deems people who have not acted in a threatening manner to be untrustworthy and therefor dangerous are themselves untrustworthy and therefore dangerous.

The idea of another AWB in spite of its negligible effect on crime suggests another motive for pushing gun bans. What seems to fit is the idea of limiting the damage should changes be forced on the people that they probably won't tolerate without resistance.

[gorfle]

236. Well let's take a look at the proposed laws...

I don't see why any responsible gun owner would have a problem with the laws mentioned in the OP. They're reasonable and sane.

They are mostly obstructions to lawful use and don't do anything to curb crime. Let's take a look.

New regulations for buying bullets where the purchaser would be required to fill out an application that would include the make, model and manufacturer of the firearm the bullets are intended for.

Aside from the fact that it's nobody's business what firearms I own, what prevents someone from lying? What happens when I own several weapons that fire the same bullet? Am I supposed to list them all? Do you think criminals will do this? Lastly, what problem is this supposed to help solve?

Requiring manufacturers to use an ammunition coding system for all handgun and assault rifle ammunition sold in New York State.

Again, other than driving up the cost of already expensive ammunition, what problem is this supposed to solve?

Limiting the purchase of all shells to 100 rounds every 90 days

In a 10 round magazine, this means you would get to reload 10 times during target practice and then you're done for 3 months. This equates to about 30 minutes of target shooting - if you take your time.

Ban the sale, use or possession of 50-caliber or larger weapons, and creates a
program to "recall" those currently legally owned

What problem is this intended to solve?

Protect the safety of law enforcement personnel by prohibiting the sale and ownership
of ammunition designed to fragment or explode upon impact and pierce body armor

Again, what problem is this intended to solve?

[TheWraith]

5. Don't be absurd.

New York already has some of the tightest gun laws in the country. It doesn't help crime.

Let me repeat this: it doesn't reduce crime. Period. Thus, you're talking about passing laws JUST for the sake of restricting something you don't like. So you're officially no longer allowed to complain when right-wingers go around trying to ban abortion, gay sex, booze, or anything else. Because you're doing the same thing.

[tridim]

9. You can give up if you want, but I'm not going to.

[jeepnstein]

13. Give up what?

Fighting for my Constitutional Rights? After you strip me of the Second Amendment, what's your next goal? Your agenda surely doesn't end there, does it?

You know full well that the only people to be burdened with these laws are otherwise law-abiding citizens and voters. Who's side are you on anyway?

[tridim]

17. I'm pro-second ammendment.

[jeepnstein]

27. Please explain that one.

It ought to be a real classic. You wish to save the 2nd Amendment by abolishing it? How very rich.

[tridim]

32. When did I say I wanted to abolish the 2nd?

You're just making shit up, as usual. It's not really an effective debate tactic.

I've always been pro-2nd, and always will be. However, I'm also for reasonable gun laws. These two views are not in conflict.

[jeepnstein]

38. "Reasonable"

You have never met a restriction on the right to keep and bear arms that you didn't like. I have yet to hear anything from you other than an agenda that has at it's center taking a Constitutional Right from lawful citizens. You are "reasonable" on the issue like Jim Crow laws were "reasonable" civil rights legislation.

Give me an example of how you support my Constitutional Rights. You can't because you don't.

[tridim]

42. Bullshit. Do a search on my name.

My position on the 2nd is well established here. I support your right to carry reasonable small arms for protection and hunting. Just like the founding fathers did.

[jeepnstein]

44. But the problem is...

I don't believe a word you say. The more I read the less convinced I become of your intentions.

[tridim]

51. What do you think my intentions are?

[virginia mountainman]

98. Confiscation, or "recall".....

You intend, by your support of this legislation, to TAKE away, the personal property, of people, who have never committed a crime, who are no threat to anyone just because some people are scared, of the kind of rifle they own.

As pointed out, the use of a .50 in crime is extremely rare, only an enthusiast, would want one, and a well off enthusiast at that.

This is pure BULLSHIT FEEL GOOD LEGISLATION.....

[Howzit]

233. Much more than feel good legislation

More like sh!t scared legislation: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=219794&mesg_id=220235

[inkool]

50. Is that the position...

where you want to ban blinged out guns for no other reason then their blingyness.


Edit for spelling.

[tridim]

52. Yep, and you want to buy them for the same reason.

[inkool]

53. Not really

The reason I have my AR-15 is mostly utilitarian. Not saying I don't like the way it looks, but then I also like the way a nice over under wood stocked shotgun looks.

I am still not completely sure what makes a gun blinged out. My gun is just a slab of black hardly any bling to it. Could you give a description of what makes a gun bling?

[tridim]

55. If it looks like a machine gun to a layman then it's blinged out.

[inkool]

59. Reasonable is to ban something on how it looks...

but not now it functions.

So if I had a gun that looked like a bolt action rifle, but functioned like a machine gun that would be ok?

[tridim]

60. No.

Do you think it should be okay to own machine guns?

[inkool]

64. It is ok...

and legal to own a machine gun. If you can pass the background check and afford one.

I am just trying to understand your position. I understand that you want to ban some guns based only on their appearance. Do you also want to ban guns based on the way they function?


edit for spelling (which I seem to be incapable of doing today)

[one-eyed fat man]

188. There are

members of DU that know what an ATF Form 4 is. Members who have paid the required tax and who possess machineguns legally. Are you saying they are unreasonable or that we don't know the difference between a machinegun and some "blinged-out" toy that has your panties in a wad?

By your own stated criteria, if it LOOKS like a machinegun to a layman, it should be banned.



TOP MP40 AEG is electric full size and full metal airsoft MP40 from Japanese manufacturer TOP and uses TOP 9.6v 1500mAh battery, which requires 9.6v battery charger. (It shoots 6mm plastic pellets that won't go through a sheet of paper)

By that reasoning, 2000 bucks worth of spray paint and decals make your clapped out, 4-cylinder Toyota as look as fast as a real race car,it should be banned.

[rl6214]

190. He dosen't get it, you are wasting your breath

It's a scary gun. OH NO!!!

[tridim]

192. I get it, I just don't look at the world through gun-metal colored glasses.

[rl6214]

196. OOOOOO

That's a good one. You got me there.

Nice debating skills.

[tridim]

191. That faux assault weapon in your post should most definitely be illegal

WTF?? I had no idea they still made shit like that.

I guess I should thank you for posting it because it perfectly illustrates my point. Bling is pointless, and potentially dangerous to the owner. What do you think would happen if a child pulled that toy assault weapon on the street (especially with the orange tip removed) and a cop was nearby?

And BTW don't bother me with the car/gun switcharoo, I've heard it a million times. Guns and cars are two completely different things.

[one-eyed fat man]

200. how about a crook with one of these?

By your own criteria, nothing wrong with this setup, it looks "harmless"
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_KidQawqCyP0/Sa_zz0Tbo0I/AAAAAAAABCk/aVMjEBSAzVM/s400/hi-caliber.org+1.jpg

On Feb 22nd, 2009 a patrol Deputy came across the above child’s super soaker. However what was found inside the power soaker was a Mossberg 12-gauge shotgun. Both the shotgun and the water soaker were fully functional.

This is more evidence that one criminal is more clever than ten thousand gun control proponents.



Law enforcement personnel are highly aware of the existence of a functional cell phone gun. This is a professionally produced (likely in Eastern Europe) firearm which is built in to a cell phone housing and looks exactly like a genuine cell phone. It would be reasonable to conclude that if someone is aiming a cell phone like a gun, it may indeed be a gun.

What you fail to understand, regardless if you point a realistic toy gun, a real gun that looks like a toy, your hand in your jacket pocket, your wallet, or even your cell-phone you very well may get your stupid ass shot the split second you have scared the cop.

Whether or not the shooting was justified will be decided by an inquest that takes weeks to figure out if he made the right choice in that heartbeat. But you can be sure of one thing, the cop will not care what kind of gun, the caliber, the method feeding, mode of operation or anything else but that it is pointed at him in formulating his decision.

[dairydog91]

207. What do I think? Darwin award. nt

[Pullo]

211. You should focus on banning toys, then.....

and quit crapping on the Bill of Rights

[one-eyed fat man]

221. Just a few short posts ago you said,

Making BB/pellet guns illegal would be unreasonable.

You just confirmed that, in fact, you are quite willing to be unreasonable.

Second, the MP40, the real one, is NOT an assault weapon, it is a submachinegun. The assault weapons ban did not affect the ownership, possession, sale or transfer of an MP40. Magazines for an MP 40 were not banned or controlled in any way by the now expired ban.

The MP40 is NOT semi-automatic.

[Pullo]

225. no need to let facts get in the way of feel-good gun grabbing

[yay]

234. Well this post show's you're mentaly inept

"I guess I should thank you for posting it because it perfectly illustrates my pointbling is pointless and potentially dangerous to the owner"

No it doesn't, a cop will shoot you for pointing a pen at him and going "bang bang". An LEO is likely to shoot you if you point ANYTHING at him/her if it looks like a firearm. Pen, cell phone, airsoft gun, nerf gun, super soaker, lighter, you name it.

How is a bayonet anymore of a threat to society than a gun with no bayonet. When was the last time you heard of a "drive by bayoneting"?

Basicly all you want is all the "bling" to be banned? The actual lethality and operating system don't matter at all?

[DrCory]

242. In The Context...

Of public safety, intent of design/use etc., is irrelevant. Lawn darts were not designed as weapons,
yet: http://www.cpsc.gov/CPSCPUB/PUBS/5053.html

"And BTW don't bother me with the car/gun switcharoo, I've heard it a million times. Guns and cars are two completely different things"

Doesn't really matter how different they might be when the result of criminal use is similar.

For example: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30495873

I can provide other examples of automobiles being used as weapons if you'd like. Not nearly as often as firearms to be sure:

"However, if they stop one murder of an innocent victim they're worth it."

Time to be consistent.

[X_Digger]

126. Legislate to the lowest common denominator, then?

Let's legislate to 'layman' standards.

That makes a LOT of sense.. much more than educating the 'layman' that it's not what he's been fooled into thinking.

[dairydog91]

143. Well, that's reassuring.

So we're going to have a committee deciding whether or not to ban stuff, and that committee will be composed only of people who are suitably ignorant?

[rl6214]

68. Posted in another thread

But you wouldn't answer the question.

Is this a "bling" gun?

<a href="" target="_blank"><img src="" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

[umccoyw]

97. i did find one of your posts that seemed anti gun to me

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5496839#5496871> please read post #8 and your response which was post # 10

[tridim]

104. Anti bling, not anti gun.

[Pullo]

125. You want to ban and confiscate firearms - that makes you anti-gun

[friendly_iconoclast]

129. 'Bling" is dangerous? Got anything more than your assertion? n/t

Otherwise, your proposed ban is unreasonable

[yay]

216. I don't hunt

I just target shoot and competition shoot. 100 rounds every 3 months would put a serious crimp on my practice.

[inkool]

41. What is...

Reasonable about the purposed laws? How will they reduce crime while not over burdening the lawful.

[Hoopla Phil]

113. So have you ever seen a gun control law that you DID NOT support?

[tridim]

119. Not recently, but I'm sure there are some that I haven't seen that I wouldn't support.

Do you have an example of an "unreasonable" gun law on the books that you believe I support?

[Hoopla Phil]

122. No but you said that this proposed law was sane and I do not believe it is.

Tell my why you believe that a restriction of 100 rounds per 90 days is sane? I find that to be a very insane restriction. When I was shooting pistols competitively I would go through 1000 rounds per month. Such an insane restriction would make it impossible to be involved in any kind of target shooting sport.

[X_Digger]

127. Lookup HR 1022

Tell us what you think..

[Caliman73]

187. How about California's AWB

Here is an example of how it affects me.

I own a Ruger 10/22. It fires a 22lr rimfire cartridge. It came with a wooden stock. I shot with it and my wrist hurt after a while. I put a synthetic stock with a pistol grip on it to improve ergonomics. No more wrist pain and improved accuracy. Perfectly legal in California.

I own a Kel Tec Su16. It is a rifle in .223 Remington centerfire. I have a similar problem when I shoot. I cannot put a pistol grip on the rifle otherwise it becomes an "assault weapon". If I choose to put a pistol grip on it, then I have to modify the rifle so that the magazine is incapable of being removed without a special tool, which would basically mean that I have to cover the button that releases the magazine so that I need a special tool, like a punch or the tip of a round to release it.

No real changes to the function of either weapon or their lethality, just bans on their cosmetic features. Explain your support for this law and why?

[rl6214]

65. No you're not

Don't even try to say you are.

[Hoopla Phil]

87. How is supporting a 100 rds per 90 day limit Pro 2A? That is NOT sane legislation IMO.

[X_Digger]

124. You're pro second amendment like..

Idi Amin was pro-FDA meat inspections.

[umccoyw]

151. Do you own any firearms? i would like to see pictures if you do please. n/t

[tridim]

159. No, but I used to fire guns with my Dad up until about age 14.

That said, if I did own a gun I would never post a picture on the freaking Internet. Guns aren't toys meant to show off to your facebook friends.

[rl6214]

168. Guns can be collectables

That can be shared with other collectors.

[raimius]

241. No, sir, you are not.

You stated you believe restrictions on guns are reasonable "if they stop one murder of an innocent victim..."
Since ANY gun can be used for murder (17th century "hand-cannon," to .22 target rifle, to M134 minigun), it would follow that restrictions on EVERY gun would be neccessary to stop the theoretical "last" murder with a firearm. After all, if that last victim is saved by banning ALL firearms, it would be worth it under your stated logic.

Your stated opinion could be used to ban all firearms, and is therefore NOT in line with supporting the individual right to keep and bear arms protected by the 2nd Amendment. Is your real opinion different than what you stated, or do you favor the potential banning of all firearms to save a single individual from murder?

[TheWraith]

14. So you want to continue following a course that's been proven not to work?

Because that's what you're talking about. Banning guns and making it harder to get ammo does not reduce crime, so let's keep doing it and do more of it?

This isn't rocket science, okay? Proven crime reducing strategies are out there. Reduce poverty, provide opportunities not involved in the illegal drug trade, reduce illegal sales by targeting straw purchasers, and increase the number of police.

[tridim]

20. Got a link?

I've said nothing about banning guns, so please quit putting words into my mouth.

[havocmom]

29. since murder IS illegal and it still is going on, no link required

Gotta real argument? No, didn't think so. If you had one, you would have used it instead of just taking shots at people who do not share your naive opinion.

[tridim]

34. What do you think my "naive opinion" is?

The straw man activity in these gun threads is epic.

[havocmom]

37. not a straw man at all. Laws against murder have not stopped it

why do you think more laws will do the trick.

Again, you do not answer and attack me. Pretty damned lame.

[tridim]

40. Because I'm not a quitter like most gun folks on DU

Now can you answer my question? What am I naive about?

I'm pro-2nd and pro-reasonable gun law. How in the hell is that naive?

[jeepnstein]

43. Go ahead. Step boldly to the vanguard and lead us.

Share your stated positions on the subject. Declare your manifesto for all to read. Then we'll all be free to laugh you out of the place. You hide behind vague terms and never make your definition of "supporting" my rights clear.

[tridim]

48. I support everyone's established rights in this country.

Including my own right to free speech and your right to bear reasonable arms.

[jeepnstein]

49. "reasonable"

What is your definition of reasonable? Spell it out for us.

[tridim]

54. A line drawn at arms that are manufactured to resemble automatic weapons..

and otherwise serve no useful purpose for responsible, law abiding gun owners.

IMO the line is only about a millimeter off as of today.

[Pullo]

66. "Resemble" but not function like automatic weapons

The AR-15 resembles the M-16, but FUNCTIONS like any other semi-auto.

AR-15's are the most popular rifles sold in the United States. They are widely owned by responsible, law abiding gun owners.

They are used extensively in competitive shooting, recreational target shooting, and are becoming increasingly adopted by hunters. Its also a fine weapon for home defense


No useful purpose.....are you joking?

[rl6214]

72. "Resemble automatic weapons"?

Are you serious?

So again you want to restrict, or ban weapons based upon how they look.

That is reasonable.

[tridim]

74. Yes IMO that is reasonable

That's where I'd like to see the line drawn.

[Pullo]

90. Doesn't matter if they have multiple useful purposes???

and are extremely popular among law-abiding citizens?(target and competition shooting, hunting, and home defense)

You want to ban the most popular rifles in the United States?

[tridim]

93. You can do all those things with a traditional rifle/shotgun.

[Pullo]

101. AR-15's have been on the market since the 1960's

They are traditional.

You want to ban the most popular rifles in the United States, even though they are rarely used in violent crime.


Your position is neither reasonable nor rational.

[inkool]

103. The AR-15...

is a traditional rifle. It has been around since the late 50s. The design is based on the AR-10 which is older still.

[X_Digger]

128. Oh I get it now..

Switch horses in mid-stream.. if there are other alternatives, it's okay to ban X.

Who decides that, you? Seems to a lot of folks, the AR-15 is the best choice. You going to argue that you're smarter about target shooting, self-defense, and hunting with 3M owners?

[tridim]

139. Lawmakers that we elect decide it.

That's how democracy works.

[umccoyw]

140. Sorry wrong again....

Democracy everyone votes on decisions. We are a Republic and our elected officials make laws they want but the only thing holding them back on issues is that they want to be reelected.

[rl6214]

141. Exxactly, not you thank God

[dairydog91]

142. If current events are any clue...

The lawmakers have decided not to ban anything at the federal level. 1994 pretty much scared off the banners.

[tridim]

146. Except a solid majority of the people agreed with the AWB.

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=498

So your claim that the "banners" were scared off is bullshit. Bush and the gun lobby let the ban expire, Bush is no hero of mine.

[rl6214]

152. Actually the democratically controlled house and senate

refused to renew the ban which bush said he would sign if it got to his desk. Our house and senate have no stomach to go down that road again because the people do not want it and they want to keep their jobs.

[X_Digger]

160. Only got one vote in committee..

Only Anthony Weiner (D-NY) voted to get it out of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. Weiner used to work for Chuck Schumer, and stepped into his seat when Chuck moved up to the Senate.

[dairydog91]

162. Clinton personally laid the blame for the 1994 loss on the AWB.

Problem was, the people who wanted the ban were often rather wishy-washy, while the people who didn't want the ban consistently fought with their money and their votes.

[Pullo]

170. n/t

[Pullo]

171. Intensity trumps extensivity.....

Poli Sci 101

[Pullo]

166. Why do you support "assault weapon" proliferation?

That's all the '94 AWB accomplished.

AR's and AK's, sans a bit of 'bling,' were still sold during the ban era......in fact, in much greater numbers than before.


Why do you support legislation that's proven to:

A. lose the Democratic party seats on Capitol Hill

B. results in the mass proliferation of "assault-weapons," with or without bayonet lugs

C. spawned the gun rights movement that has been very effective in rolling back firearm regulation across the country

[X_Digger]

173. Here's the sales graph from the study..

Notice the jump in production in '89 when CA banned "assault weapons" then in '94 for the fed. Hell, the biggest jump in production happened _during_ the ban.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

230. The majority can't decide to violate the Constitutional Rights of others.

[jeepnstein]

238. Thanks for the civics lesson.

So, if the majority decides it's alright to silence dissent, disenfranchise certain voters, or compel testimony against ones self it's OK? No, I didn't think so.

Just because some firearms don't pass your aesthetic test doesn't mean they aren't covered under the 2nd Amendment.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

229. Why do you care what a weapon looks like?

[dairydog91]

131. Emphasis on "IMO"

Ugh. What about rifles based off of the Browning Automatic Rifle?

[Pullo]

137. That gun is a dangerous SNIPER rifle!!!

No responsible gun owner would dare purchase such a heinous weapon!

It likely shoots ammunition capable of piercing body armor, or in some instances frangible bullets which explode flesh.

[dairydog91]

138. Yes. Anyone who owns such a rifle obviously HATES THE CHILDREN!

And I heard that people hunt wild animals with BARs too. Imagine that, hunting Dumbo with a weapon based off a World War II squad automatic weapon.

[jeepnstein]

117. Appearance?

That's it? That's the basis for your support for my rights? Now there's an aesthetic test for protection under the Bill of Rights?

I cannot believe that you want to be taken seriously and then come up with that one.

[umccoyw]

67. has the constitution changed since i last read it?

i dont remember seeing the word reasonable anywhere in the 2nd amendment. Now if you feel that should be in there then be my guest and try to amend the constitution. until then oh well, i believe the end of the 2nd amendment says shall not be infringed but i could be wrong. I feel no violent felons or mentally ill should be allowed to own guns, i think it should be illegal to use a firearm in the commision of a crime, i think NCICS checks are ok to. but telling me i cant have a gun that looks like a machine gun or telling me how many rounds i can buy in a time frame is not reasonable. Did you also know that if they pass the serializing or rounds law that if you wanted to give a friend some rounds you have to do paper work to transfer ownership and i believe you also have to turn in all rounds you have already that are not serialized. If you think that is reasonable please explain why you think so. You have a right to free speech but what if the government stepped in and told you that you cant tell anyone you hate them or that if someone says something you dont agree with then you cant say anything because that can lead to conflict and make people mad and possibly start a fight or someone might snap and commit a murder. Is that reasonable?

[rl6214]

70. The wording in the second amendment

Does not say "reasonable arms".

It's not up to you to modify it. If you want it modified, get it amended.

[tridim]

78. All the arms the founding fathers had at the time were reasonable.

Therefore "reasonable" is to be implied. That's why you can't launch a SAM from your back yard.

[umccoyw]

81. how is a SAM a firearm? n/t

[rl6214]

83. You can "imply" all you want

I can also "imply" that your use of a computer and the internet is dangerous and a threat to the security of the United States, therefore I think I will support a law that will ban your usage of these items. Or maybe just limit your usage to an hour a day. That's about equal to 100 rounds for 90 days.

[jeepnstein]

120. The Colonists' small arms...

were the latest and greatest in killing technology of the day. The Colonists had numerous fighting guns that were suitable for combat and in most cases superior to what the British Army carried. Some of them also owned their own artillery. We also employed privateers to conduct naval operations.

So what's the "implication" of that? Come on out and say it.

[dairydog91]

132. From the Elmer Fudd department.

When, exactly, did firearms become unreasonable? Was it rifling in the barrel? Bolt-actions? The first gas-operated actions? The first box magazines? The incorporation of plastics?

[one-eyed fat man]

164. John Hancock

owned ships with cannon. You might research Letters of Marque and understand that private citizens owned warships. our Founding Fathers among them. Privateers represented a goodly portion of our Naval Forces in until past the Civil War.



Article I, Section 8, paragraph 11 of the U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to "grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water." A "reprisal" means an action taken in return for some injury. A reprisal could be a seizing of property or guilty persons in retaliation for an attack and injury.

The right to issue letters of marque was relinquished by signatories to the Declaration of Paris, which was an annex to the 1856 Treaty of Paris, which ended the Crimean War. The United States had no role in the Crimean War and never subscribed to the Treaty. Technically, Congress can still issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal.

Privateers, mercenaries, or military contractors, what Blackwater does is not new.

[beevul]

228. Actually, All the arms the founding fathers had at the time were IDENTICAL to that of the military.

You are allowing for much less, in your "support" of the second amendment.

[havocmom]

45. we aren't quiters when we finally give up and put people who do not debate on ignore

Once again, you failed to answer the question and attacked me. So, logically we can all assume you cannot refute the actual point.

Have fun talking to the walls. You have struck out with your continual refusal/inability to answer the question and instead attack people with false premises and false labels. Pretend that getting the last word means you win. You were never even in the game.

[Pullo]

47. You just said you support a law banning and confiscating .50's.....

....firearms VERY rarely used in crime

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=219794&mesg_id=219811

Yes, you DO want to ban guns, and you want to confiscate guns.


There is not a damn thing "reasonable" about that

[SecularNATION]

91. Baloney

You've said quite a lot about banning guns. Guns you don't happen to like. AR-15s and .50 cals, for instance.

[rl6214]

96. Can't forget the AK47

[SteveM]

28. You are fighting a culture war based on hatred...

The sooner you realize this, the sooner we can get off the prohibitionism and tackle some real problems in this country.

Prohibition doesn't work. It's chief function is to demonize groups of people by demonizing the thing they have or the behavior they engage in. This is the same dynamic used to ban/prohibit gay sex, ganja, guns, abortion, booze, tobacco, etc.

Please read Kates & Kleck, The Great American Gun Debate, 1997, Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy. Here is what Steven B. Duke, Professor of Law at Yale (and a progressive) had to say about this book: "If you believe, as I once did, that we can reduce violent crime by simply restricting gun ownership, you should read this book. It will change your basic beliefs."

[SteveM]

11. You should charge the GOP for your views. They use your stuff extensively (nt)

[dairydog91]

39. If these are "sane", then I'll pass...

New regulations for buying bullets where the purchaser would be required to fill out an application that would include the make, model and manufacturer of the firearm the bullets are intended for.

Requiring manufacturers to use an ammunition coding system for all handgun and assault rifle ammunition sold in New York State.

Well, that pretty much kills reloading in the state of NY.

Limiting the purchase of all shells to 100 rounds every 90 days

You've got to be kidding me. Most people I know buy .22LR by the 500 round brick, and that's only a couple of bucks. Plus most people who are even semi-seriously practicing self-defense use way more than 33 rounds per month. Target shooting also is going out the window.

Ban the sale, use or possession of 50-caliber or larger weapons, and creates a
program to "recall" those currently legally owned

One question: WHY? Is there any justification for this, besides bogus claims about shooting down airplanes?

Protect the safety of law enforcement personnel by prohibiting the sale and ownership
of ammunition designed to fragment or explode upon impact and pierce body armor (Watch out hunters, with center fire rifles....)

Fragmentary ammunition, for example frangible rounds, is notorious for low ability to penetrate armor. What, exactly, are they trying to ban here?

[RaleighNCDUer]

56. The last question looks like a poorly written line about two different

kinds of rounds - the 'fragmentary' (dum dums, they used to be called) rounds that are designed to rip huge holes in another person - not good for much of anything else - and steel jacketed rounds designed to penetrate armor - which are unnecessary for target shooting and worthless in hunting, as they leave small holes that will go straight through the prey, unlike typical lead rounds that flatten out, doing more damage and have more stopping power. The first are designed as anti-personnel rounds against unarmored persons; the second are anti-personnel round for armored persons. Neither is any use in either target shooting or hunting, nor are they efficacious in self-defense as dum dums would be overkill, and burglars and stick up guys don't wear body armor.

[umccoyw]

79. Fragmenting rounds serve a purpose.....

While in the military at a range i went to we had to shoot frangible ammunition because they said it was the law because it wasnt as bad for the environment. Dont know if its true but thats what i was told

[dairydog91]

118. Frangible ammo is better for the environment

Provided that the bullets are made from non-toxic materials.

[dairydog91]

116. "Dum-dum"

Often refers to hollow-points, which have a legitimate self-defense purpose. Hence some of my curiosity over the gov's lousy terminology.

[X_Digger]

130. And AP rounds have been illegal for civilians since 1986 (expanded 94) n/t

[one-eyed fat man]

214. let's blow a few holes

in your misconceptions.

Dum-Dum bullets were actually exploding bullets, designed and built by the Dum-dum Arsenal, in British India (near Calcutta) in the early 1890s. Imprecisely used as a generic term for all types expanding bullets. These types of bullets were banned in warfare by the Hague and Geneva Conventions.

Full metal jacket bullets may have jackets made of cupronickel, gilding metal or even very thin mild steel. Steel jacketed bullets are not the same a steel cored and even not all steel cored bullets are armor piercing bullets.

TM43-0001-27 ARMY AMMUNITION DATA SHEETS SMALL CALIBER AMMUNITION

Soft point expanding rifle bullets commonly used by hunters will blow through most any soft vests worn by anyone.

Full jacket bullets commonly used by the military in pistols and submachineguns will not penetrate most soft vests. Needless to say, it requires military grade SAPI armor to withstand the 7.62x51 mm M-80 Ball round, the 7.62x54R mm Type LPS Dragunuv round or the 5.56x45 mm M855 round.

Armor piercing bullets, with tungsten carbide or other hardened steel cores are intended to penetrate armor plate. Even APIT M20 for the M2 caliber .50 machinegun will only penetrate just under an inch of steel at 100 meters. (I think this ammunition is the infamous HEAT SEEKING bullet that Carolyn McCarthy prattles on about. No doubt DARPA will be eager to learn of this astounding capability)

Except for WW2 and Korean War vintage M2 AP ammunition in caliber .30 which was available as surplus widely in the 50's and 60's. Real AP has been unavailable or illegal for years.

[Hoopla Phil]

107. Just more insane gun control crap that won't do anything to the criminals.

[raimius]

240. It is neither sane nor responsible.

Think about this, how many rounds are criminals likely to fire in 90 days? What about those who compete in competitions where 100 rounds is considered the absolute MINIMUM to complete the course? These people regularly fire 500 or more rounds per WEEK. This bill is not targeting criminals (average murders with firearms do not involve many shots being fired), but they absolutely will destroy recreational and competitive shooting sports.

[jody]

7. If SCOTUS says the 2nd is incorporated in the 14th it should affect some of those bills. n/t

[ensho]

8. sounds like some good regulations

nt

[SteveM]

30. Please, don't pass up the NRA $. They'll pay for re-printing your stuff (nt)

[tularetom]

18. These proposed laws are crap

Although I notice nothing in them would prevent me from reloading.

But the ban on .50 caliber weapons would apparently affect those of us who use black powder muzzle loading rifles.

If I thought there was a chance in the world this stuff would pass I'd be concerned.

[Iktomiwicasa]

194. Black powder

cartridge firearms and muzzle loading weapons are currently exempt from any + .50 caliber restrictions.

[Badgerman]

21. Will not deter"Jose, Vitorrio or Billy Bob!

This is an issue being driven, believe it or not, by the RIGHT WING twirly-eyes. Ach! why would I say that. You need to read their blogs. From way back in the campaign the hue and cry from the McVeigh set has been "The Dems, that muslim Obama, all they are out to do is take our guns!" "You must all arm yourselves and stock up on ammo because we will have to fight them", "there will be war in the cities" ad nauseum. These people WANT confrontation! No silly half-baked laws or regulations will deter them, nor remove one single weapon from their arsenals. Further the issue detracts from REAL issues, like maybe budgets for pandemic preparation? The Economy? Healthcare? Fire up the media to cover a blood feud between the radical fringes...left and right, and you get zero coverage of real issues. Think about it folks.

edit spelling

[SteveM]

33. Excellent! But you'll incur the wrath of the NRA and the DNC (nt)

[Pullo]

36. They **ARE** trying taking your guns away!

Its not propaganda at all, anyone who claims otherwise is diluted!

How many .50's have been involved in crimes in NY???


There is NO basis for confiscation!

[tridim]

58. "Dilute" this..

Do you think that gun is fucking reasonable? :eyes:

[SecularNATION]

84. Yes and No

Are .50 rifles "reasonably" easy to cart around? No.

Are they "reasonably" priced? No.

Is .50 ammunition "reasonably" priced? Definitely No.

Are .50 rifles "reasonably" good for very long range target shooting? Yes.

Is it "reasonably" easy to find a place to one? No.

Are they "reasonably" good for shooting a human being? No. Will do the job, but, much smaller rifles are better for that task.

Do .50 rifles look "reasonably" mean and scary? To some, apparently.

Are .50 rifles used in a "reasonable" number of crimes? No. The number is zero or almost zero.

Is it rational and "reasonable" for Democrats to call for a ban on a rifle which has shown to be of no real danger to the public?

No. I don't think so.

[SecularNATION]

86. correction

5th line should read "easy to find a place to shoot one".

[Pullo]

88. So you DO want to ban guns!

At least you're finally starting to admit that. :applause:


(The firearm pictured is an Armailte AR-50, btw. MSRP~$3,000 - $5 per round of ammo)


Can you demonstrate such a weapon is often used in murders? No, you can't.

I can, however, http://www.fcsa.org/wwwroot/">demonstrate shooting clubs centered around these rifles.

Bunch of fucking criminals, they must be.:crazy:


So, no, there's nothing reasonable about banning and confiscating these firearms from lawful citizens.

[Hoopla Phil]

114. Do you think it is unreasonable? If so, why?

[Hoopla Phil]

115. I see that as being protected by the 2A. Do you not?

[slackmaster]

193. I've got one of those - It's not just reasonable, it's a lot of fun to shoot

I removed the buttstock and mounted mine on a machine gun tripod.

http://members.cox.net/slack/images/AR-50_+_slack.jpg

I have a considerable sum of money invested in the setup, and will fight very hard against any attempts to infringe on my right to keep and use it.

[rl6214]

198. HOLEEE Shit

Now you've done it. Not only have you posted a picture of a GUN, but you said you have FUN SHOOTING IT.

[slackmaster]

203. And the M249 SAW in the background is the real thing

A machine gun, NOT an "assault weapon". (It's not mine.)

[Pullo]

209. Happiness is a belt-fed machine gun!

:hi:


I hear the AR-50 is quite an accurate piece of hardware, it has a mammoth muzzle break!

[slackmaster]

235. Very accurate, and the muzzle brake works very, very well

And you don't want to be anywhere near where the blast gets directed.

[michreject]

222. Nice gun. It's an Armalite

I want one. Oak Ridge, a range in Tennessee has a 1000 yard match a few times a year. I would love to shoot it with a 50.

[Hoopla Phil]

75. Yep. True gun grabber fashion.

[Hoopla Phil]

77. Disgusting!

Hell, shooting pistol competition I would go through 1000 rounds a MONTH. I'm curious, are police officers going to be limited to 100 rounds every 90 days also? Are they going to have to go through the same reporting requirements? If not then this is purely draconian.

[virginia mountainman]

94. One thing is for certain about this thread...It exposes the enemies that walk among us.

It makes it CRYSTAL CLEAR, just how for outside the mainstream many of these "Anti gun nuts" are. Just how loony their stances are, and just how far they are willing to go....Confiscation, has their blessings...

In just a few posts, they prove beyond the shadow of a doubt, that they stand against the US Bill of Rights, and by so doing, they are the enemy.

And any one who stands against the Bill of Rights, should be drummed off this fine board.

[Hoopla Phil]

99. Even the "Pro Second Amendment" ones. What a shame.

[tridim]

108. You think I'M outside the mainstream?

:rofl:

Sounds like you want to alert me because I don't agree with you. Good luck!

I'm pretty sure calling a DU'er "the enemy" is against the rules, but I'm not going to alert you because I enjoy the debate.

I'll stand by my 8 years of DU membership. I'm not going anywhere and I will continue to express my opinion weather you agree with it or not.

[rl6214]

123. You are outside the mainstream

And your arguement has lost all legitimacy with your comments like these:

"If it looks like a machine gun to a layman then it's blinged out."

"Anti bling, not anti gun."

"A line drawn at arms that are manufactured to resemble automatic weapons..
and otherwise serve no useful purpose for responsible, law abiding gun owners."

"There is no reason a .22 should look like an assault weapon."

"I've always said that no shotgun or rifle NEEDS to be made to look more dangerous specifically for that reason. That's what bling is.

Listen, I understand that some people get a thrill out of firing weapons that look like military issue."

[tridim]

145. You're wrong according to the polls..

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=498

Majority of U.S. Adults Favors Continuing Ban on Sales of Assault Rifles, According to Latest Harris Poll

On September 14 a 10-year ban prohibiting the sales of assault rifles and high-capacity ammunition expired. These rifles and ammunition may now be purchased. However, a substantial majority (71%) of all U.S. adults favors continuation of this ban. Support for the ban is equally favored across all groups including Republicans, Democrats and Independents.

These are the results of The Harris Poll of 1,018 U.S. adults surveyed by telephone by Harris Interactive® between September 9 and 13, 2004.

The main findings of the survey are:

A large majority (71%) favors continuation of the ban prohibiting the sales of assault rifles and high-capacity ammunition while 26 percent opposes continuing the ban.
Overall, a 60 percent majority favors stricter gun control, with 32 percent wanting less strict control and 4 percent volunteering no change. This majority has declined since 2000 when 63 percent favored stricter gun control and in 1998 when a larger 69 percent favored it.
Republicans and Democrats hold very different views on the overall issue of making gun control stricter. Just under half (48%) of Republicans favor making gun control stricter and 41 percent favor making it less strict. This compares to Democrats who by 72 to 21 percent favor stricter gun control. U.S. adults who classify themselves as Independent feel that gun control should be made stricter (63% to 32%). Interestingly, this partisanship does not extend to the assault rifle ban. Over seven in 10 Republicans, Democrats and Independents all support the ban (ranging from 72-74%).

---

I couldn't find any recent polling on the issue, but I'd love to see it if you have a link. The only polls I've seen that agree with you are online polls on gun sites. That aint mainstream.

[rl6214]

147. Where does any of that say

That guns should be regulated/banned based upon bling. According to you, that is the deciding factor. THAT is how you are outside the mainstream. That appears, in this thread to be your sole basis for regulating/banning a weapon.

[tridim]

148. Banning assault style weapons is a mainstream view.

The Bling argument is my own.

[dairydog91]

155. However, it doesn't necessarily win elections.

As the 1994 debacle showed all too well.

[friendly_iconoclast]

163. "The Bling argument is my own"- Not unless you're Josh Sugarman!

Or have been hoodwinked by him...

http://www.vpc.org/studies/awaconc.htm

...Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons...

Maybe you *are* Josh Sugarman, in which case you should be making plans to open up a gun store in DC.
You could be making a pile of cash, even if you stuck with the retro-look market.

[rl6214]

172. If it's SO mainstream

Why can't a bill even get to the floor to be debated upon much less voted upon?

And don't say because of the big bad NRA. You think our Democratically controlled house and senate is in the back pocket of the NRA?

[tridim]

176. Since there's apparently a new rule that lobbyists don't count in debate..

I'll just have to say I don't know.

Maybe lack of action on this issue is one reason why Congress has a rotten approval rating?

[Pullo]

180. Most representitives don't care about the approval rating of Congress.....

.....they care about keeping their seats

[rl6214]

186. We can only speculate

But since so many have said it's a back burner issue, I doubt if the lack of discussion on an AWB has much to do with approval ratings, but that's only speculation.

[umccoyw]

157. In Tridim's defence............

The AWB basically targeted Bling. Which is wrong to do. My rifle is "blinged" or whatever tridim calls it. and in NYS it would be illegal except it is stamped Colt M-4 carbine. If it was stamped Colt AR-15 then by NYS law it would be illegal. doesn't make sense to me

[slackmaster]

156. That just PROVES that a majority of Americans are IGNORANT of the subject

The term was "assault weapons", not "assault rifles".

A majority of people don't understand what the AWB banned and what it did not ban.

...On September 14 a 10-year ban prohibiting the sales of assault rifles and high-capacity ammunition expired. These rifles and ammunition may now be purchased....

News Flash:

They could be purchased DURING the ban too.

[Pullo]

177. Sure, decption can be effective

especially to an audience that isn't familiar to the topic.


And people tend to get angry after finding out they have been misled. That is why support for stricter gun control has been heading south for 15 years.

[michreject]

223. Your data is 5 years old

That's an eternity.

[friendly_iconoclast]

134. How mainstream is the claim that 'bling' is dangerous?

Got any cites? Sources? Published papers upholding your claim?

Thought so....

[dairydog91]

136. More than that, when did the elimination of bling become a national prerogative...

And when do we begin purging bling from MTV and BET?

[friendly_iconoclast]

144. Would DVD box sets of "Cribs" be restricted to police/military use?

Or their purchase be limited to one season every 90 days?

With registration of the make and model # of the DVD player they would be used in, of course.

Inquiring minds want to know!

[dairydog91]

206. Are you joking?

Box sets? Cribs?!? Those would require a "Bling Arsenal" license. Who but a collector could have the need for so much senseless bling?

[yay]

213. WOW.......

I feel bad for all those in NY.

100 rounds every 3 fucking months? I go through 4 times that in one sitting....

Jesus tits NY has gone insane.

[krispos42]

218. Ah, moral panic legislation

I suspect this will work about as well as the Patriot Act and last year's bailout bill.



Cue the whining in 5 years... "Those damn criminals keep using UNREGISTERED guns and UNREGISTERED ammo! How dare they!"



Oh, the NRA-ILA is going to have these laws tied up in knots for years.

[aikoaiko]

243. Ammo manufacturers need to go Ronnie Barrett on the asses of NY assembly.

They should honor the State of NY's request to sell all ammo with tracking numbers (including to LEO) by saying that since they don't sell that product, no more ammo sales. Something tells me the legislators of NY will soon be changing their tune before they were unemployed.