New York SAFE Act. or Are You Sick of the Gun Debates Yet?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-04-2013, 10:28 PM
New York SAFE Act. or Are You Sick of the Gun Debates Yet?
New York passed the so-called SAFE Act not long ago. Among the restrictions in the bill, it made it illegal for people to own a pistol that held more that seven rounds. That may sound reasonable to some. If you own a handgun other than a revolver, then you can probably see the problem with this. Virtually all pistols hold 10-15 rounds. They have effectively made criminals out of every pistol owner in New York. Of course this has pissed off every pistol carrying citizen of New York, because overnight they will go from being law-biding citizens to criminals overnight. Another portion of the SAFE Act banned "assault rifles." They use vague terminology and describe accessory items to determine what is classified as an "assault rifle"

This is an issue which I have spoken on before. The term "assault rifle" doesn't really mean shit. It is a term used by people who are not really familiar with guns, or understand them. So-called assault rifles, are really just rifles that look scary to people who have watched the media and cheesy Hollywood action movies. To people to familiar, I can take any of my rifles, slap a few accessories on it and put on a synthetic stock and then it becomes an "assault rifle." That's right, I can take my rifle which is over a hundred years old, before the first World War, and make it a scary assault rifle by spending a couple of hundred bucks. The functionality would be essentially unchanged, but it would be scary looking.

The retaliation and backlash are nothing short of awesome (that is to say, it is a backlash of huge proportions. The people, not only New Yorkers, are going ape-shit. The gun manufacturers are also lashing out. The New York Police Department (NYPD) have tried to purchase rifles since the bills passing and have been outright declined for purchase by nearly 150 different arms manufacturers who refuse to sell weapons to the state that are not available to citizens.

The lawmakers have since realized they fucked up. Big time. They have since publicly admitted this, and many have expressed that they want to change the wording and possibly change or omit certain portions. Unfortunately they claim that it's too fucking late to change it. They are now too focused on budgetary issues to revisit it at the moment.

In addition to the SAFE Act, at least one Democrat is trying to introduce a bill that would make it illegal to own a firearm without a 10,000 dollar insurance policy. What shit are we into now.

Thoughts?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2013, 10:39 PM
RE: New York SAFE Act. or Are You Sick of the Gun Debates Yet?
I'll never understand why Americans are so obsessed with owning guns. Huh

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Hughsie's post
02-04-2013, 10:42 PM
RE: New York SAFE Act. or Are You Sick of the Gun Debates Yet?
Quote:Are You Sick of the Gun Debates Yet?

Yes, I'm sick of them.

"Which is more likely: that the whole natural order is suspended, or that a jewish minx should tell a lie?"- David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2013, 11:06 PM
RE: New York SAFE Act. or Are You Sick of the Gun Debates Yet?
(02-04-2013 10:39 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  I'll never understand why Americans are so obsessed with owning guns. Huh

Reason one: when the government or foreign tyrannies come, people can rise against them.
Question: guns AGAINST grenades, armed vehicles, tanks, assault helicopters, artillery, fighter jets, battleships, missiles and nukes?

Reason two: shoot trespassers and burglars.
Question: if it is illegal to have guns, wouldn't it be easier to deal with trespassers and burglars?

Want something? Then do something.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like HU.Junyuan's post
03-04-2013, 07:02 AM
RE: New York SAFE Act. or Are You Sick of the Gun Debates Yet?
(02-04-2013 11:06 PM)HU.Junyuan Wrote:  
(02-04-2013 10:39 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  I'll never understand why Americans are so obsessed with owning guns. Huh

Reason one: when the government or foreign tyrannies come, people can rise against them.
Question: guns AGAINST grenades, armed vehicles, tanks, assault helicopters, artillery, fighter jets, battleships, missiles and nukes?

First off, this is a stupid argument because the defense against tyrannies thing is mostly symbolic, it represents control over one's environment. You probably wouldn't understand unless you grew up or spent quite a lot of time in the southern US.

Second, if it did come to war, what makes you think rifles wouldn't be of use against grenades, armored vehicles, tanks, assault helicopters, artillery, fighter jets, battleships, missiles and nukes? What do you think Iraq and Afghanistan have been doing for the last decade? Hell, they won against the entire US armed forces using nothing but left-over Cold War weapons and improvised explosives. They broke the will of the most powerful military on the planet with guns older and more out of date than many guns in the US. Looks like rifles trump missiles anyway.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2013, 07:27 AM
RE: New York SAFE Act. or Are You Sick of the Gun Debates Yet?
(03-04-2013 07:02 AM)Phaedrus Wrote:  
(02-04-2013 11:06 PM)HU.Junyuan Wrote:  Reason one: when the government or foreign tyrannies come, people can rise against them.
Question: guns AGAINST grenades, armed vehicles, tanks, assault helicopters, artillery, fighter jets, battleships, missiles and nukes?

First off, this is a stupid argument because the defense against tyrannies thing is mostly symbolic, it represents control over one's environment. You probably wouldn't understand unless you grew up or spent quite a lot of time in the southern US.

Second, if it did come to war, what makes you think rifles wouldn't be of use against grenades, armored vehicles, tanks, assault helicopters, artillery, fighter jets, battleships, missiles and nukes? What do you think Iraq and Afghanistan have been doing for the last decade? Hell, they won against the entire US armed forces using nothing but left-over Cold War weapons and improvised explosives. They broke the will of the most powerful military on the planet with guns older and more out of date than many guns in the US. Looks like rifles trump missiles anyway.

So I got two points:

(1) The 2nd Amendment is mainly symbolic but necessary for peaceful times.

(2) And it will be useful in times like Iraq and Afghanistan being invaded.

More than somewhat reasonable I have to admit the two points were.

Yet gun violence indeed caused a lot of tragedies ...

Well not quite much of my responsibility to deal with the gun problem. Here in China a gun violence case is HUGE, therefore I don't need to worry about that much.

Good luck with you American people.

Want something? Then do something.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2013, 08:08 AM
Re: New York SAFE Act. or Are You Sick of the Gun Debates Yet?
If you think a tyranny situation would be a bunch of old fat white guys vs the US Military you see in recruiting commercials and movies where everyone in the military is a good looking, ripped, jet flying-sniper-spec ops operator who can drive cars underwater and shoot missle launchers while parachuting into ft knox without anyone knowing, please stop posting.


Just ponder this one: what kind of person do you think joins the military to train with firearms and and kill people with them? A good bit of them are country boys who grew up with a gun in their hand.

And where do a lot of these people go on to get jobs in later? answer Government agencies, law enforcement and the gun industry maybe? Yep:D

Only symbolism ?
[Image: battle-of-athens-tn-sign-430.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2013, 08:27 AM (This post was last modified: 03-04-2013 08:30 AM by HU.Junyuan.)
RE: New York SAFE Act. or Are You Sick of the Gun Debates Yet?
(03-04-2013 08:08 AM)TheBlackKnight Wrote:  If you think a tyranny situation would be a bunch of old fat white guys vs the US Military you see in recruiting commercials and movies where everyone in the military is a good looking, ripped, jet flying-sniper-spec ops operator who can drive cars underwater and shoot missle launchers while parachuting into ft knox without anyone knowing, please stop posting.


Just ponder this one: what kind of person do you think joins the military to train with firearms and and kill people with them? A good bit of them are country boys who grew up with a gun in their hand.

And where do a lot of these people go on to get jobs in later? answer Government agencies, law enforcement and the gun industry maybe? YepBig Grin

Only symbolism ?
[Image: battle-of-athens-tn-sign-430.jpg]

'a bunch of old fat white guys vs US army' you mentioned several times but never occurred to my mind.

Yet this is a good opportunity for me to understand what the 2nd amendment means for people against gun control.

[1] Originally I thought it was aimed at tyranny many years ago, and therefore outdated now. But from your point of view, it's hardly the case. From your picture, I realized that maybe I misunderstood you again. Did you means that preparation against possible tyranny is still a necessary thing even now?

[2] I thought it was for people to protect themselves. Therefore I suggested gun control because less guns could mean less harm. But from your point of view it's hardly the case either.

[3] You mentioned ordinary people growing up with guns and joining the military. So my guest of the reason why the 2nd amendment is needed is that it's good for patriotism.

Am I right this time?

If not, can you tell me what you think the answer is, please?

Want something? Then do something.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2013, 08:45 AM
RE: New York SAFE Act. or Are You Sick of the Gun Debates Yet?
Don't know if you're talking to me, TBK, but just so you understand my point of view, I believe gun ownership is largely based on the subconscious desire to control one's environment, and the culture of the rural and southern US sees the gun as a symbol of control over your environment. That is the reason why gun owners fight for their rights. On top of that is all the practical reasons, such as self defense, hunting, and the ability to resist tyranny.

The odds of a revolution of some sort happening in the foreseeable future are exceedingly slim; but if it were to happen I think an armed populace would stand a fair chance, certainly orders of magnitude better than an unarmed people. Iraq, Afghanistan (2001), Afghanistan (1979), Korea, Vietnam, and similar wars have shown us that it is entirely possible for an insurgency with vastly inferior weaponry to win a war against a major super power, or at least fight it to a draw. Asymmetrical warfare is actually skewed in favor of the weaker party, especially if the local people oppose the stronger force.

And in the case of a revolution in the US, it's worth noting that a significant portion of the armed forces would likely defect. It wouldn't be the US military versus old fat guys with hunting rifles. It would be half the US military versus half the US military PLUS a lot of guys with rifles. Look at the Civil War; half the US military command structure defected to the Confederacy, including most of the best generals, and half the infantry. And while we're at it, if Stonewall Jackson hadn't died at Chancelorville it's quite likely that the south would have won the battle of Gettysburg, smashed the Army of the Potomac, placed Washington at risk, and forced Lincoln to accept a peace treaty.

On the subject of how effective civilian weapons would be, it's interesting to note that most any hunting rifle in the US will pierce US infantry armor once you load it with hardball instead of hollow points. And the AR-15 and AK-47/74 are very effective tactical rifles. And it isn't difficult to make explosives. Plus many arms and ammunition factories are run by the very people who would support a revolution, and they would likely churn out machine guns and assault rifles as fast as they could.




Anyway, a revolution, like I said, is unlikely. But if it did happen, it would not be as one sided as they would suppose. And I'd like to mention, there are a lot of gun owners who would compromise on things like gay marriage and marijuana if you let them keep their guns, and I think you'd rather have them on your side if things went pear shaped, than on the side of the religious nutters.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Phaedrus's post
03-04-2013, 09:14 AM
Re: New York SAFE Act. or Are You Sick of the Gun Debates Yet?
Yeah, I really dont like talking about the T word because its just sounds paranoid and distasteful.

Another aspect of southern/rural anywhere gun culture is its just another tool to become as self reliant as possible, which country folk value and practice. Couple this with the fact that cops have 0 duty to protect the individual and a legal protected from doing so, all arrows point to you being responsible for you.


I'll respond to that other dude later when I'm on a computer and have time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: