Gun Control 30 days later

[Sweetpumper]

Every man women and child should be ready to protect themselves with a blade.

The blade is always on me.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Sweetpumper

[aztek]

lol, not with new new york laws.

4 A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth

5 degree when:

6 (1) He or she possesses any firearm, electronic dart gun, electronic

7 stun gun, gravity knife, switchblade knife, pilum ballistic knife, metal

8 knuckle knife, cane sword, billy, blackjack, bludgeon, plastic knuckles,

9 metal knuckles, chuka stick, sand bag, sandclub, wrist-brace type sling-

10 shot or slungshot, shirken or "Kung Fu star"; or

11 (2) He possesses any dagger, dangerous knife, dirk, razor, stiletto,

12 imitation pistol, or any other dangerous or deadly instrument or weapon

13 with intent to use the same unlawfully against another

[Sweetpumper]

lol, not with new new york laws.

4 A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth

5 degree when:

6 (1) He or she possesses any firearm, electronic dart gun, electronic

7 stun gun, gravity knife, switchblade knife, pilum ballistic knife, metal

8 knuckle knife, cane sword, billy, blackjack, bludgeon, plastic knuckles,

9 metal knuckles, chuka stick, sand bag, sandclub, wrist-brace type sling-

10 shot or slungshot, shirken or "Kung Fu star"; or

11 (2) He possesses any dagger, dangerous knife, dirk, razor, stiletto,

12 imitation pistol, or any other dangerous or deadly instrument or weapon

13 with intent to use the same unlawfully against another

Wow. No wonder NY is such a safe haven.

[aztek]

Wow. No wonder NY is such a safe haven.

oh yea, good portion of inmates in nys jail are there for a bag of weed, a sheetrock blade, or some other "weapon" they had on at the moment. i know a a case where a construction guy had a folding sheetrock knife in his posket, cops arrested him while he was in line at the food truck, he got 6 month in jail, and had to pay lawyer about 20k. all for harmless sheetrock blade. i would not be surprised if they start arresting ppl for assult pencils. they have to show arrests, that they fight crimes.the whole thing reminds me of cut off ears bounty in vetnam war

[ninjadude]

So yes they have an obligation to defend the 2nd Amendment.

A gun is a tool to a farmer.

Gun control or even repealing the 2nd Amendment is NOT prohibition. Only the very social paranoids that hang out here and other places think that.

[Yamato]

Yes, but the way a gun protects you is by being designed to kill the person it is used on. Just as the purpose of a hammer is to help you build things by nailing nails.

I have never said that. If after all these posts you think that is what I'm advocating, then please just stop commenting on what you "think" I want and leave me be.

Yes, but the way a gun protects you is by being designed to kill the person it is used on. Just as the purpose of a hammer is to help you build things by nailing nails.

I have never said that. If after all these posts you think that is what I'm advocating, then please just stop commenting on what you "think" I want and leave me be.

So you aren't for disarming us of our handguns that are responsible for nearly all gun crime! The gun owners will be thrilled to hear it.

I think you're advocating a lot of things for a random smattering of different reasons, clutching at straws looking for justification to make guns the problem, and here you are, after being challenged with a gun-toting scenario, denying that you've been doing it after all these posts. You've just admitted that the gun isn't the problem, and you don't even know it.

[F3SS]

please just stop commenting on what you "think" I want and leave me be.

For the last 3 or 4 days you've been commenting on what you want me to think. Aggrevating, huh?

[Stellar]

So you aren't for disarming us of our handguns that are responsible for nearly all gun crime! The gun owners will be thrilled to hear it.

I think you're advocating a lot of things for a random smattering of different reasons, clutching at straws looking for justification to make guns the problem, and here you are, after being challenged with a gun-toting scenario, denying that you've been doing it after all these posts. You've just admitted that the gun isn't the problem, and you don't even know it.

And I think you are making up any hypothetical unlikely scenario just to try to justify your position.

[Stellar]

For the last 3 or 4 days you've been commenting on what you want me to think. Aggrevating, huh?

Not quite. I don't want you to think anything. There are certain things that I believe you should think, and that is still a far cry from putting words in your mouth like Yamato is doing.

[Yamato]

And I think you are making up any hypothetical unlikely scenario just to try to justify your position.

I provided one scenario and you agreed with me that you weren't against it. We are successful at helping to convince you not to disarm us of our handguns that are responsible for nearly all gun crime. This proves that the gun, even the handgun, isn't the problem. So we look at the real problem: people.

[Stellar]

I've never advocated gun bans, I've been advocating gun control. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that you "convinced" me that handguns shouldn't be banned as I never said they should.

[Stellar]

And just as I've said in another thread when this all started, I believe the culture surrounding guns is what needs to be changed. Culture is slow and difficult to change, so proper gun control is the first logical step in my mind

[Yamato]

I've never advocated gun bans, I've been advocating gun control. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that you "convinced" me that handguns shouldn't be banned as I never said they should.

So the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. You can respect the rule of law I hope if you're advocating for more of them.

Who's not for gun control? I'm for gun control. We have gun control (on our people) already! We're both happy about the way things are if I take you at your (most recent) word.

And just as I've said in another thread when this all started, I believe the culture surrounding guns is what needs to be changed.

If you want to change our culture, start with the government and its hypocrisy (its utter lack of gun control) overseas, and then work your way into free Americans' houses who are the farthest thing from hypocrites. Thank you.

[acidhead]

And just as I've said in another thread when this all started, I believe the culture surrounding guns is what needs to be changed. Culture is slow and difficult to change, so proper gun control is the first logical step in my mind

I've never advocated gun bans, I've been advocating gun control. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that you "convinced" me that handguns shouldn't be banned as I never said they should.

....something tells me you watched CNN tonight.... cause that's exactly what Piers said earlier to the fake debate panel he had on Gun Control.

[Stellar]

So the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. You can respect the rule of law I hope if you're advocating for more of them.

Who's not for gun control? I'm for gun control. We have gun control (on our people) already! We're both happy about the way things are if I take you at your (most recent) word.

And just as I've said in another thread when this all started, I believe the culture surrounding guns is what needs to be changed.

If you want to change our culture, start with the government and its hypocrisy (its utter lack of gun control) overseas, and then work your way into free Americans' houses who are the farthest thing from hypocrites. Thank you.

The point of contention, one which I do not think can really be resolved between us, is that I

1. Don't think that gun control is an infringement

2. Do believe that the 2nd amendment can be changed if enough people want it to be

The control you have, I believe, is insufficient. As for changing the culture by starting with the government, I disagree that that's an effective starting point. The government's "culture" is not the same as its people's. Numerous times I have heard people tell me to distinguish between Americans and their government.

[Stellar]

....something tells me you watched CNN tonight.... cause that's exactly what Piers said earlier to the fake debate panel he had on Gun Control.

I did not watch CNN. Does it matter if Piers said the same as me? I fully expect many people to share my point of view.

[ninjadude]

I've never advocated gun bans, I've been advocating gun control. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that you "convinced" me that handguns shouldn't be banned as I never said they should.

the gun nuts have a black and white mindset. Either it's total prohibition or guns for all. There is no in between. They just don't get it.

[F3SS]

the gun nuts have a black and white mindset. Either it's total prohibition or guns for all. There is no in between. They just don't get it.

The thing is that law abiding citizens haven't done anything to deserve to have any guns taken away. Wether they need them or not is irrelevant. You guys have done a great job explaining how good people will have less guns. You guys have done a p*** poor job explaining how bad guys will have less guns. They're the problem and you guys haven't addressed that. You've only addressed how to impose your will and weaken the good guys. Besides, all guns are equally as dangerous in the wrong hands. What good is banning certain ones.

[Yamato]

The point of contention, one which I do not think can really be resolved between us, is that I

1. Don't think that gun control is an infringement

2. Do believe that the 2nd amendment can be changed if enough people want it to be

The control you have, I believe, is insufficient. As for changing the culture by starting with the government, I disagree that that's an effective starting point. The government's "culture" is not the same as its people's. Numerous times I have heard people tell me to distinguish between Americans and their government.

Supermajority on the Hill + 3/4s of the states either by legislature or convention. What you need to do here to establish the real contention is disagree with people thumbing up your posts who are asserting that a simple majority can repeal our Bill of Rights.

A democratic government is REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PEOPLE. And if it isn't, it should be made so. That's the whole point of being a democracy. Don't ignore that, and feed the blatant hypocrisy all the corn meal it wants. People going around using giant guns to kill people do not represent me. And they're not going to get your statist hall pass while my guns that have killed nobody, need more controlling. Running up massive loads of debt and putting it on the people of the future to pay for plus interest doesn't represent anything I do in life. I pay my bills. I take responsibility for myself. I don't hold a non-existent standard for myself and a double high standard for the small people below me. Bugger that liberal/statist nonsense.

If the federal government wasn't running around the world looking for fights to start, if it wasn't killing hundreds of thousands and millions of innocent people around the world, it might have this legitimacy on this issue that you think it does. If you think you need more control over other peoples' guns whatever that means, don't go to Washington DC and cry and beg there, awash in unconstitutional hypocrisy. Go to your state, or your local government, go to your town hall, and make your case to your own community.

And if you're not getting the representation from your own community that you deserve, you are free to go.

Edited January 19, 2013 by Yamato

[ninjadude]

The thing is that law abiding citizens haven't done anything to deserve to have any guns taken away.

thing is, that is not being considered.

[Drayno]

Gun control or even repealing the 2nd Amendment is NOT prohibition. Only the very social paranoids that hang out here and other places think that.

No, we do not have prohibition. Instead we have various people either doing the following, or proposing the following..

• In MA they want people to store their "assault guns" at Government operated depots, not their homes
  
• In New York they made a category of illegal guns out of currently legal guns; an example of Ex Post Facto gun laws that are unconstitutional, thus illegal
  
• There is Feinstein's draconian gun bill that calls for a universal gun registration, a national gun database, fingerprinting
  
• There are various federally and state endorsed gun buy back programs that advocate people disarming themselves voluntarily
  
• One of the recent 23 Executive Orders that refers to seized guns; implying the intentions to seize certain guns owned by law-abiding citizens
  

Yes, there isn't outright prohibition, but we've begun to chip away at the Second Amendment.

Granted, we're following the footsteps of the Liberal Weimar Republic in the following ways..

• Criminalizing various weapons in the hands of law-abiding citizens
  
• Criminalizing people for owning weapons beyond the purposes of of hunting
  
• Referencing shooting and hunting as the basis for gun ownership; whereas the Second Amendment is not exactly for said purposes
  
• Making stringent gun control laws that apply to the people, but not politicians (politicians in the Weimar Republic were exempt)
  
• There was already a prohibition on bolt-action rifles that had 5-shot magazines since 1919, and the 1928 law continued this
  
• Ensuring that the police had records of all firearm acquisitions (a national database today is this dream realized)
  

Of course, all these laws were already present and had been enforced until 1933 when Hitler came to power and began disarming and eliminating "communists", or any one who was a political opponent or someone who was not a National Socialist. Afterwards the German gun laws were changed to encourage gun ownership - but only after Hitler established his cult of personality and fearsome secret police and killed all his opponents.

But apparently I'm a social paranoid, I guess.

Gun ownership seems to be made out to be a disease these days. I suppose common sense is being targeted as well.

Edited January 19, 2013 by Eonwe

[Stellar]

One of the recent 23 Executive Orders that refers to seized guns; implying the intentions to seize certain guns owned by law-abiding citizens

It doesn't imply anything of the sort. Guns are seized for various reasons already, all justified...

[Uncle Sam]

Basically this law is preparing my nation for civil war...

[AsteroidX]

Yes basically it is. Ive had to talk a few vets down lately they are so angry.

[Drayno]

It doesn't imply anything of the sort. Guns are seized for various reasons already, all justified...

When guns are seized because of an Ex Post Facto law it is unconstitutional, thus illegal. As the Constitution is the law of the land, any attempts to subvert it show the true colors of those who would want to justify an unconstitutional law. When guns are seized as the direct result of an Executive Order that subverts Congress, it's an indication that there is an agenda and an upset in the separation of powers in our government.

Edited January 20, 2013 by Eonwe