gun show loophole rant
Quote: s2dbakerToo bad the guy in the Maserati didn't have a gun with which to defend himself. Clearly the answer is more guns.
Actually the answer is to quit pretending guns are the problem and than banning them will make us a land of rainbows and unicorns where all is well. If you don't want a gun just don't buy one.
Quote: s2dbakerClearly the answer is more guns.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=WoazkUVZW9k#t=17s
Clearly the debate over gun control is silly at best. If you let somebody take your gun/guns then you don't deserve them in the first place. Who will be taking these guns away and how would "they" do it?Quote: s2dbakerToo bad the guy in the Maserati didn't have a gun with which to defend himself. Clearly the answer is more guns.
Quote: treetopbuddyQuote: s2dbakerIf you let somebody take your gun/guns then you don't deserve them in the first place. Who will be taking these guns away and how would "they" do it?
By using armed peace officers.
Quote: SOOPOOwait,what....door to door search? See, here I go, getting pulled into the silly gun control conversation. I'm out.Quote: treetopbuddy
By using armed peace officers.Each day is better than the next
Quote: vert1276your father has a CCW? otherwise their is a waiting period on all firearms sales bought through a FFL in NY state right?
Surprisingly, there is no waiting period for guns in NY, at least as far as I remember or could find.
I just wanted to point out how stupid this all is. Even that 30 round AK labeled as "Out Of State Purchases Only". I work 5 minutes from the PA border, and obviously work and am friends with those that live on that side. I would've taken nothing more than a phone call and a 20 minute wait to have one meet me there, nab the AK, and hand it over to me. Had the AK been something I really wanted, that's exactly what I would've done, and I'm a non violent, non criminal who must keep a clean record for employment reasons.
So if I can do it....
SCOTUS is hearing a case on the legality of reselling copyrighted items made outside the United States, but I haven't seen a decision yet. It's really bad news for consumers if it goes the wrong way and everything bought will essentially be rented.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/30/business/supreme-court-hears-copyright-case-on-imported-textbooks.html?_r=0
http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/firearms-companies-restricting-sales-government-agencies-areas
Quote: EvenBobDamn straight..
http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/firearms-companies-restricting-sales-government-agencies-areas
I applaud this with every fibre of my being.
Wait,..I mean...for shame, EB. Don't you know guns is bad? NY SAFE is already paying dividends. Why, just this week another criminal was taken off the streets. Nathan Haddad, an honorably discharged combat vet who served 4 tours and time in Iraq, was arrested and charged with 5 "violent class D felony charges" for having 5, unloaded, 30 round mags in his car. Forget that the AWB doesn't apply to mags built before '94, and forget that that portion of NY SAFE hasn't kicked in yet, they got him! Seven years in the clink and he deserves every minute.
Or something...
The piece of legislation on the EXISTING BOOKS is is NY Penal Law 265.00. This was added to the penal code in 2000, not in 2013.
23. "Large capacity ammunition feeding device" means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device, manufactured after September thirteenth, nineteen hundred ninety-four, that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition; provided, however, that such term does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition."
265.02 states: A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree when: (8) Such person possesses a large capacity ammunition feeding device. Criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree is a class D felony.
So, the law that this person was arrested under has been on the books for 13 years. So why is this news?
The defendant claims that he lived in New York since 2010 and didn't know that the law existed. Fair enough. It's unlikely that he will be jailed. Of course, if he was a celebrity, he'd likely be hailed as a hero.
Edit: The more I think about this, the more I don't have a problem with this. Yeah, he's a decorated war hero. But he was trying to sell these illegal magazines to someone who also would have been illegally buying (and possessing) the magazines. He lives in northern new york state. I can only guess what the buyer of these magazines had intended. Given that the great majority of our handguns come from the United States, I shudder to think that it is these sorts of innocent transactions that lead to gun rampages on the streets of Montreal or Toronto.
Of course, Timothy McVeigh was also a war hero (receving the Bronze Star during Gulf War I) and also hails, Face, from Western New York.
Quote: vert1276it seems amazing to me someone would be ok with the government telling them how many bullets their gun car hold....But a new sheep is born everyday
Too many people want to trade their freedom for security. Watch "Amerika" on Youtube and you will be amazed how close the parallels run.
Quote: boymimboIn addition, prosecution offered a plea deal: 5 Class A Misdeamenors. And, according to the Washington Times, the magazines were marked "Restricted: For Military Use Only". According to the article, he was trying to sell these magazines.
The defendant claims that he lived in New York since 2010 and didn't know that the law existed. Fair enough. It's unlikely that he will be jailed. Of course, if he was a celebrity, he'd likely be hailed as a hero.
Edit: The more I think about this, the more I don't have a problem with this. Yeah, he's a decorated war hero. But he was trying to sell these illegal magazines to someone who also would have been illegally buying (and possessing) the magazines. He lives in northern new york state. I can only guess what the buyer of these magazines had intended. Given that the great majority of our handguns come from the United States, I shudder to think that it is these sorts of innocent transactions that lead to gun rampages on the streets of Montreal or Toronto.
Of course, Timothy McVeigh was also a war hero (receving the Bronze Star during Gulf War I) and also hails, Face, from Western New York.
I shudder when I think about the 10# springs the AR15 uses, and these could also end up in a massacre on the streets or Montreal. Arrest Ace Hardware clerks!
People should also be able to own aircraft carriers. I could just see Warren Buffett and Bill Gates taking their profits to buy themselves a carrier group, though it's more likely that my boss (who will remain nameless) would do that.
You have the right to defend yourself. You don't need a 30 catridge magazine, unless you're intending on taking it to the office or your school to kill some people. Use common sense.
Baaah.
Canada's restrictions on the AR-15:
Quote: wikiThe Government of Canada classifies the AR-15 (and its variants) as a restricted firearm. For anyone wanting to lawfully own an AR-15, they must obtain a Possession and Acquisition License (PAL) valid for restricted firearms and then each acquisition of a restricted class firearm is subject to approval by the Chief Firearms Officer (CFO) of the would-be buyer's province of residence.[19][20] With the introduction of strict gun control measures by former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien (Bill C-68), the AR-15 had originally been intended to be classified as a prohibited firearm, making it all but impossible to privately own one. However, due to the presence of nationwide Service Rifle target shooting competitions, the AR-15 was granted a sporting exception.
As with all Restricted firearms (including most pistols, some shotguns, and some rifles) AR-15s are allowed to be fired only at certified firing ranges since the CFOs of all provinces and territories have agreed to issue ATTs (Authority To Transport) for these guns only to certified ranges. Since owners can't legally take these guns anywhere else that shooting is allowed, they can in effect only shoot them on certain ranges. In order to legally own and transport a Restricted firearm, the firearm must be registered with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Canadian Firearms Program and must apply for an Authorization to Transport (or ATT) from the Chief Firearms Officer (CFO) for their province or territory. Additionally, the firearm must be unloaded, deactivated by a trigger or action lock, and be in a locked, opaque container during transport.[21]
The issuance of ATTs varies considerably from province to province, and is generally reflective of a particular province's political and social levels of acceptance toward gun ownership. In Ontario the only way to obtain an ATT for restricted firearms is to become a member of a range, whereas in Alberta, where firearms ownership is widely accepted, generally a single ATT is promptly issued that allows citizens to transport firearms to border crossings, gunsmiths, and shooting ranges. Firearms transfers in provinces such as Quebec can take up to 3 months to process.
Quote: boymimboYou have the right to defend yourself. You don't need a 30 catridge magazine...
I don't need other people telling me what they think I need.
Quote: boymimboYeah my point is that the law this guy broke (and probably countless other men and women) has been in the books in New York State since 2000 and I am not sure why people are making a big stink about it today.
People should also be able to own aircraft carriers. I could just see Warren Buffett and Bill Gates taking their profits to buy themselves a carrier group, though it's more likely that my boss (who will remain nameless) would do that.
You have the right to defend yourself. You don't need a 30 catridge magazine, unless you're intending on taking it to the office or your school to kill some people. Use common sense.
Baaah.
Disagree. I might very well need 30 rounds. Additionally these magazine controls will do nothing to eliminate the 100 million or so high capacity magazines already in circulation. Don't worry, you can feel better knowing that you criminalized behavior that doesn't harm anyone.
Quote: boymimboYou don't need a 30 catridge magazine, unless you're intending on taking it to the office or your school to kill some people. Use common sense.
.
You don't NEED a 60" TV.
You don't NEED a muscle car.
You don't NEED to drink 20 year old bourbon.
You don't NEED $300 shoes.
Use common sense.. Lets regulate everything, lets
tell everyone what they NEED..
Apparently the magazine control stopped one person.
what we do NEED, is for everybody to mind their own business......the country is full of hall monitorsQuote: EvenBobYou don't NEED a 60" TV.
You don't NEED a muscle car.
You don't NEED to drink 20 year old bourbon.
You don't NEED $300 shoes.
Use common sense.. Lets regulate everything, lets
tell everyone what they NEED..
Quote: EvenBobYou don't NEED a 60" TV.
You don't NEED a muscle car.
You don't NEED to drink 20 year old bourbon.
You don't NEED $300 shoes.
Use common sense.. Lets regulate everything, lets
tell everyone what they NEED..
Bob, you need Viagra and/or Cialis.
Quote: boymimboAnd I do feel better knowing my next door neighbours likely doesn't have an AR-15 in case I manage to piss him off.
Then you're deluding yourself. More people are killed
by .22 handguns than any other weapon in the US.
Its not the weapon, its the person using the weapon.
Libs never seem to understand that little detail. Like
Bloomberg banning sugary drinks to combat obesity.
Its not the FOOD, its the person. Change the person,
you change his obesity problem.
Quote: EvenBobThen you're deluding yourself. More people are killed
by .22 handguns than any other weapon in the US.
Its not the weapon, its the person using the weapon.
Libs never seem to understand that little detail. Like
Bloomberg banning sugary drinks to combat obesity.
Its not the FOOD, its the person. Change the person,
you change his obesity problem.
Bloomberg is changing the person.
Now if I am in NYC and want 36 oz of soda, I need to stand in line and buy a 16 ouncer, drink it, and then stand in line again to buy another. See how much healthier that is? Get the person up and out of his seat and in SHAPE!!!
Bloomberg is an Ass-Clown
Quote: boymimbo
People should also be able to own aircraft carriers. I could just see Warren Buffett and Bill Gates taking their profits to buy themselves a carrier group, though it's more likely that my boss (who will remain nameless) would do that.
I have no problem there, though no private citizen would come close.
You have the right to defend yourself. You don't need a 30 catridge magazine, unless you're intending on taking it to the office or your school to kill some people. Use common sense.
What does what you think anyone needs have to do with what they want to own?
Murder is already illegal, we don't need to take away rights.
How on earth does someone having a 30 round clip affect you?
Quote: boymimboYeah my point is that the law this guy broke (and probably countless other men and women) has been in the books in New York State since 2000 and I am not sure why people are making a big stink about it today.
People should also be able to own aircraft carriers. I could just see Warren Buffett and Bill Gates taking their profits to buy themselves a carrier group, though it's more likely that my boss (who will remain nameless) would do that.
You have the right to defend yourself. You don't need a 30 catridge magazine, unless you're intending on taking it to the office or your school to kill some people. Use common sense.
Baaah.
LOL anti gunners are so predictable...they always go straight for the hyperbole...."well, do you think you should be able to own a nuke?"
Do you know whats great about a country with liberty? I don't have to qualify to my government WHY I need to own something in order to own it...but as long as we are on the subject of WHY one might need a 30 round mag.....their might be a natural disaster, where the is an extended period without rule of law.....there might be an economic collapse were their is an extended period without rule of law....The government might, over the years take more and more liberties and one might be forced to defend myself from their own government....do I think any of these things are likely to happen? No I don't! But I don't own a crystal ball and neither do you.....I don't think my house is likely to burn down, yet I still have home owners insurance...
At some point you have to balance protection of society with freedom.
The US is not a country of liberty. If anything, it is a country where most of its citizens live in unreasonable paranoia and fear.
It is burdened more by laws and regulation than many other countries, especailly in the area of tax law, affirmative action, and so on. I would say it's probably the most litigious country in the world.
Now, boo hoo, you might not be able to keep your personal weapon of mass destruction at home anymore.
Quote: boymimboOh I don't know. Ask the families of the victims in Aurora, Columbine, or Sandy Hook. Let's just hope it doesn't happen at my kid's high school. Because 7 bullets in a magazine does about 4 times less damage than 30. Or not having availability to the gun would even be better.
And you assume they just won't bring more than one gun? Or some other method to kill people. Homicide bombers from the Gaza Strip do well without firearms for example.
Quote:At some point you have to balance protection of society with freedom.
Those who trade their freedom for protection shall have nor do they deserve either.
Quote: boymimboOh I don't know. Ask the families of the victims in Aurora, Columbine, or Sandy Hook. Let's just hope it doesn't happen at my kid's high school. Because 7 bullets in a magazine does about 4 times less damage than 30. Or not having availability to the gun would even be better.
At some point you have to balance protection of society with freedom.
If "assault weapons" in the hands of legal gun owners are such a problem that needs to be cured, why don't you go over, say the last 10-20 or 30 years and site the numerous cases where lawfully owned "assault weapons" were used by their owners to commit these horrendous crimes you keep bringing up to justify your opinions.
According to you this should be very easy for you to document.
Quote: timberjimIf "assault weapons" in the hands of legal gun owners are such a problem that needs to be cured, why don't you go over, say the last 10-20 or 30 years and site the numerous cases where lawfully owned "assault weapons" were used by their owners to commit these horrendous crimes you keep bringing up to justify your opinions.
According to you this should be very easy for you to document.
Careful, you are asking a liberal to argue with facts instead of "feelings."
Quote: vert1276as we are on the subject of WHY one might need a 30 round mag.....
"Callahan: I know what you're thinkin', punk. You're thinkin' did he fire 30 shots or only 29? Now to tell you the truth, I've forgotten myself in all this excitement."
Quote: timberjimIf "assault weapons" in the hands of legal gun owners are such a problem that needs to be cured, why don't you go over, say the last 10-20 or 30 years and site the numerous cases where lawfully owned "assault weapons" were used by their owners to commit these horrendous crimes you keep bringing up to justify your opinions.
According to you this should be very easy for you to document.
Hey, boybimbo, I'll make it easier for you to site cases. Take it back to late WW II when the AK-47 was being developed. That gives you over 65 years in which to justify your position with facts. We are waiting for you to back up what you have said about how dangerous these "assault weapons" are when they are legally owned.
He didnt need a hunk of metal to harm somebody with. His weapon of chose was his fists which Im sure he would have used if he could have.Quote: s2dbakerToo bad the guy in the Maserati didn't have a gun with which to defend himself. Clearly the answer is more guns.
Link to FBI crime stats
Newtown was a legally owned assault weapon.
Aurora was a legally owned assault weapon.
Wade Michael Page had a magazine with 19 bullets in his mass murder.
An estimated 2.5 million assault weapons are owned in the United States, compared to 114 million handguns, 110 million rifles, and 86 million shotguns. So of course you would expect the murder rate to be about .5% of the total from assault rifles.
So that's about as far as I need to go. The data suggests strongly that most murders are committed by handguns, disportionately high as a matter of fact, when you take the numbers.
The question referred to LEGALLY owned.Quote: boymimboEasier for me to cite cases... well geez, given that law enforcement doesn't keep records on the type of gun used to kill victims, it's pretty hard. It's like asking someone to give me the distribution of what golf club was used to get holes in one. The stats aren't there. But let's try anyway.
Link to FBI crime stats
Newtown was a legally owned assault weapon.
Aurora was a legally owned assault weapon.
Wade Michael Page had a magazine with 19 bullets in his mass murder.
An estimated 2.5 million assault weapons are owned in the United States, compared to 114 million handguns, 110 million rifles, and 86 million shotguns. So of course you would expect the murder rate to be about .5% of the total from assault rifles.
So that's about as far as I need to go. The data suggests strongly that most murders are committed by handguns, disportionately high as a matter of fact, when you take the numbers.
Quote: boymimboEasier for me to cite cases
Newtown was a legally owned assault weapon.
.
The first case you site is a blatant lie. You know the legal gun owner was the first person murdered by this nutcase to obtain the weapon. Try again.
Quote: timberjimThe first case you site is a blatant lie. You know the legal gun owner was the first person murdered by this nutcase to obtain the weapon. Try again.[/q +1
Quote: boymimboYep, and the legal gun owner kept the gun in the household where the murderer had free access to the weapon, so yeah, the firearm was legally owned. The perpetrator had no right to use it of course, but no one has the right to commit murder.
I have always appreciated your comments because they are sincere & respectful, but the above post is just flat out dishonest. Adam Lanza did not own those guns.
But the guns were legally owned. Had the guns not been in the home and readily accessible by the murderer, the catastrosphe at Sandy Hook wouldn't have happened.
------------
I don't have a problem with the ownership of guns. Americans have that in their constitution and it's your way to live. And if I wanted to own a gun here in Canada, I have to get the permits to do so, and then I have very strict laws on where I can carry my weapon.
And of course, there is always going be the healthy debate between those who feel that they are responsible with their guns and those who feel that society needs to be protected. I'll debate a couple of issues with gun ownership. One is the the general ability for legal firearms to fall into the wrong hands whether it be through a gun show or through theft. Yeah, assault firearms may be fine in the hands of responsible owners, but one that are stolen (like Lanza) are not.
Second is the notion that there are portions of society that need to be protected from possessing firearms. Of course there is the mentally unstable and those with a criminal records. You can regulate that by forcing people to keep their weapons locked up. Maybe the better idea is to ban handguns instead of assault rifles or make it much harder to get a firearm in the first place.
Look, I live 5 miles from the US Border. We have three major cities that are within 100 miles of the border with the same love for violent movies, the same culture, and the same influences in life. Yet our society is far less violent... Toronto's murder rate is 1.7/100,000 which is lower than any city of 250,000 or greater in the United States. Why is that?
Quote: boymimboLook, I live 5 miles from the US Border. We have three major cities that are within 100 miles of the border with the same love for violent movies, the same culture, and the same influences in life. Yet our society is far less violent... Toronto's murder rate is 1.7/100,000 which is lower than any city of 250,000 or greater in the United States. Why is that?
According to previous answers, it's the people. Even if Canada had a billion guns, it's the people. Canadians are superior.
Quote: boymimboNo, not dishonest, Beethoven. The guns used in the murder were legally owned by the murderer's mother and the guns were in the same home. Put it this way. When my daughter borrows my car without telling me (and she will) I'm not going to charge her with grand theft auto. And yeah, if Lanza was caught by police on the way over to the Sandy Hook, well, he would have been arrested for not having a CCW permit.
But the guns were legally owned. Had the guns not been in the home and readily accessible by the murderer, the catastrosphe at Sandy Hook wouldn't have happened
Blatant dishonesty. Sorry, but this is why your side will never attract people from my side. I don't know how else one can respond to such nonsense other than saying, "Adam Lanza did not legally own any guns."
Even your analogy is dishonest. If your daughter borrows your car without telling you, that doesn't change the fact that the title is still in your name, not hers. In other words, she doesn't own the car. You do.
Quote: boymimboHad the guns not been in the home and readily accessible by the murderer, the catastrosphe at Sandy Hook wouldn't have happened.
Speaking of cars...had a car not been readily accessible by the murderer, the catastrophe at Sandy Hook wouldn't have happened either.
Quote: Beethoven9thBlatant dishonesty. Sorry, but this is why your side will never attract people from my side. I don't how else one can respond to such nonsense other than saying, "Adam Lanza did not legally own any guns.
AHHHHH
boymimbo is NOT saying "Adam Lanza legally owned the guns he used." boymimbo is saying that the guns were legally owned period. I.e. they were purchased through legal channels, etc. Nomenclature, people.
Quote: AcesAndEightsboymimbo is NOT saying "Adam Lanza legally owned the guns he used." boymimbo is saying that the guns were legally owned period.
And they were legally owned by whom?
I really don't see what your overall point is here. By your broad definition, every gun in the US is "legally owned".
Quote: Beethoven9thQuote: AcesAndEightsboymimbo is NOT saying "Adam Lanza legally owned the guns he used." boymimbo is saying that the guns were legally owned period.
And they were legally owned by whom?
I really don't see what your overall point is here. By your broad definition, every gun in the US is "legally owned".
I understand your perspective too - I am actually more in favor of gun rights than the average person (i.e. I am closer to you on this issue than boymimbo). I just hate watching people argue over nomenclature when the underlying important points don't get time.
I will not put words into boymimbo's mouth, but the point I took away from his post was that the guns were legally purchased by a close family member. No, Adam Lanza did not legally purchase them. No, he was not the legal owner. But had there been laws preventing the sale of "assault weapons" (a maddeningly ambiguous term by the way), then perhaps his mother wouldn't have owned them, and it would have been more difficult for him to execute his plan. That is the idea behind making it harder to legally obtain these kinds of weapons, and I at least can understand that idea and argue about whether it would be effective or not.
Again, I don't think those laws should exist, but I can't stand the constant bickering and back-and-forth.
Quote: AcesAndEightsI understand your perspective too - I am actually more in favor of gun rights than the average person (i.e. I am closer to you on this issue than boymimbo). I just hate watching people argue over nomenclature when the underlying important points don't get time.
I will not put words into boymimbo's mouth, but the point I took away from his post was that the guns were legally purchased by a close family member. No, Adam Lanza did not legally purchase them. No, he was not the legal owner. But had there been laws preventing the sale of "assault weapons" (a maddeningly ambiguous term by the way), then perhaps his mother wouldn't have owned them, and it would have been more difficult for him to execute his plan. That is the idea behind making it harder to legally obtain these kinds of weapons, and I at least can understand that idea and argue about whether it would be effective or not.
Again, I don't think those laws should exist, but I can't stand the constant bickering and back-and-forth.
If that's his position, then he should just say so.
What he did say in a previous post was, "Newtown was a legally owned assault weapon," which gives one the impression that the perpetrator legally owned the guns he used (which is far from the truth).
Quote: rxwineCanadians are superior.
LOL! Its demographics. How can I put this.
I live in MI. Look at the breakdown of our
prison population. Look at who's who in
prison and do the math. Do the same for
Canada. What do you see?
There will be a test on this later.
