Stupid NY Gun Law

[AfterDarker]

There is an argument put forward in a few of the above posts that "it is no use having stricter gun laws because criminals don't obey laws anyway."

If we follow this argument to its logical conclusion, its no use having any laws at all "because criminals aren't going to obey them." I guess this reasoning also explains just why criminals are criminal.

So, do all anti-gun law adherents really think we shouldn't have ANY laws? Or is there a grudging acceptance that, actually, some laws might be good.

A lawful society and individual rights are not mutually exclusive. Indeed they are complementary.

A foreigners view.

[Motorcycle Forums]

MotorcycleForums.net is the original Motorcycle Forum! Registered Users do not see these ads. Please Register - It's Free!

[old codger]

However, I prefer to live in a country where I do not feel the need to be armed to defend myself from the threat of violent crime or some repressive government. The government of Germany is there FOR the citizens and residents, instead of posing a threat

Read your history of Germany from about 75 years ago, the government was there for all the people then wasn't it. I have been in most countrys of western europe, I would not trade places with any of them. People are ok with giving up a little (lot) of freedom in the name of security, not me.

What kind of gun was that .45 Magnum you shot?

[lighthiker90]

Right now you couldn't get an AR if you tried, they are all sold out.

I have one that I will now sell. It is on armslist.com or PM me if you are interested. I don't wish to register it every 5 years now as required. If I fail to do so I will be a felon and loose the rest of my guns. Nobody has mentioned the cost of registering either. How much is this going to ding me every five years now?

[JmalB]

I love Afterdark's slippery slope arguement.

There are already many, many gun control laws on the books. The new laws are arbitary, knee-jerk and do not address the root cause of the problem.

If they really wanted to reduce the number of unwarranted violent deaths, they'd ban cars.

[lighthiker90]

There is an argument put forward in a few of the above posts that "it is no use having stricter gun laws because criminals don't obey laws anyway."

If we follow this argument to its logical conclusion, its no use having any laws at all "because criminals aren't going to obey them." I guess this reasoning also explains just why criminals are criminal.

So, do all anti-gun law adherents really think we shouldn't have ANY laws? Or is there a grudging acceptance that, actually, some laws might be good.

A lawful society and individual rights are not mutually exclusive. Indeed they are complementary.

A foreigners view.

AfterDarker - That might be some of the best logic I have heard in a while. I know the rest of the world views us as odd. It is a product of the environment and our history. Our media thrives on feeding us fear.

You can't predict violent crimes. But there are certain areas that should be avoided. If you live somewhere where you need to be armed 24/7 to protect yourself, evaluate where you live or work and move.

I have children. My guns are locked away at all times. Ammo is locked seperately. That's why I have a dog and an alarm system.

I am now a criminal if I don't sell off some of my positions that were legal yesterday.

None of the new laws would have prevented any shooting. A 15 year old can not walk into Kmart and buy an AR15. Somebody else bought it and did not secure it, or it was taken. That aspect of the law I agree with. If you have guns you have a responsibility for keeping them away from those that don't and shouldn't have guns.

[Y2K]

I know, arguing about gun control is like trying to teach a pig to fly.

As I've said many times before ... I grew up in Los Angeles. I have fired many kinds of guns, from .22 caliber rifles to .45 magnum revolvers. It's a lot of fun.

However, I prefer to live in a country where I do not feel the need to be armed to defend myself from the threat of violent crime or some repressive government. The government of Germany is there FOR the citizens and residents, instead of posing a threat to them.

I'm always amazed how people in the US claim that they need massive firepower to protect their rights. I feel that I have much more freedom living in Europe - since the risk of being involved in violent crime is much lower. Sure, there have been some terrible crimes here - the Winnenden school shooting (2009) or the Loerrach hospital shooting (2010) are two examples near my home. But even these cases showed that it is better that few people are armed - imagine the confusion and the danger when you've suddenly got a bunch of people standing around with weapons drawn - how can the police identify who is "bad" and who is "good"? I think having lots of people armed would result in more injuries and death of innocent bystanders.

Well it's seems to me the reason for all that is because Americans with guns kicked the hell of a faciast who took everyones guns away some time back in history.

[Drifter]

It is hard to compare europe to the U.S. Both are large enough you have to consider what region you are focusing on. The violent crime rate in the U.K. is much higher than the U.S. Switzerland is much lower. Then Chicago is statistically a killing field while the entire northwest is on the bottom of the scale. Violent crime (including homicide) is going to happen guns or not.

Afterdarker, I bet this looks horrifying being from austrailia. The U.S. seems to be addicted to negitive drama. All of our t.v. shows, movies, papers, etc. dwell on it and our mainstream media thrives on it. It seems to focus on how much danger you are in. And now I see how it is affecting people abroad. All you ever hear about is how someone shot inocent people and the weapons they used, how dare the person them self be responcable for the act. You never hear about how someone used a gun for defensive purposes, the woman in G.A. who had an intruder break into her house with a crowbar, pursue her into a corner of her crawl space until she shot him. Or the young single mother who stopped the intruder mid day with a shotgun. Or the theater shooting in texas stopped (litterally dead in its tracks) by an off duty sherrif. There are actually both sides to the argument of being armed, but the mainstream media doesn't broadcast it.

The reason I beleive ARs should be accessable is a bit different than most evedently. Sure the second ammendment points torward a tyrannical gov. which I agree with, more so every day. But I am more worried about a foreign threat. First our neighbor to the south have the strictest gun control you can have. Well that has created what I call a 'cartel' state where the criminals run things period. This is a prime example of how gun control works. To even limit what kind of weopon people can have in these border states is criminal in my opinion. But now an even worse scenario. I don't know why, I never 'voted' for these policies, but the U.S. seems to think that we are the world police. Even worse we seem to pick and choose who we help, or attack. That absolutly has to create some bitter enemies around the world, on top of the ones we already had. We seem to just ignore countries like Colombia or Mexico, but do what we can to manipulate the oil dynasties. But politics set aside we are not a loved country by all.
Here is one scenerio. A dirty bomb goes off in a major city. What will kill more people than the bomb is the people its self. The mob panic won't be limited just to that city either. Most of our resources will be used to regulate our own people, leaving us extremely vaunerable to outside forces. With our navy out playing police and tight gun control on both coasts this is something to seriously think about. I have read about several scenerios like this but it all comes down to the people will have to protect themselves at one point in time and a single shot rifle is not what comes to mind.

We are free citizens so if you don't want a gun don't buy one. But that freedom is inpart guarenteed by the second amendment. Guns have been used defensivly as long as they have been used offensively. If we need a change how about we ban assault, rape, theft, homicide, domestic abuse, pedophilia, and some of the other issues we have. Oh wait we have, how is it still happening?

You don't like the second amendment GTFO!

[lighthiker90]

Believe it or not, at one point Jerry Springer was the most watched/exported US tv show. How poor does that make us all look?

We are hipocrites in picking and choosing who we decide to police. It surely has created many enemies.

I like my second ammendment rights and i don't like having them impinged upon.

[Drifter]

I like my second ammendment rights and i don't like having them impinged upon.

Amen!!! Especially in your neck of the woods.

[limitedbyfourkawiby2]

I can see if there is a mother bear outside your window and you think to yourself, polly want to cap her, but why do people got to shoot unsuspecting people who turn their back for 2 minutes.

[limitedbyfourkawiby2]

Hans Walters Murder-Suicide: Las Vegas Police Officer Allegedly Shot Family, Burned Home, Killed Self

like this for example, the man went on a killing spree instead of just doing away with himself. maybe i am a little aggressive on the slant of which I use my words, but well I blame it on video games.

[AfterDarker]

You wouldn't like to visit me, I have several guns near me in the house, they are loaded too. I have no young children, my one is 34 and is a doctor (pharmD). I carry a gun almost everywhere I go as well and I am legal, most have 15 round magizines, I normally download a 15 mag to 12 rounds to save the spring. I did have an unauthorised visitor in my house at 4AM a few years back, situation handled because I was armed.

My Christmas present this year was a "12 gauge Coach Gun" with 20 inch barrels, loaded at all times with 00 buck. As the man said, "from my cold dead hands". Reforms not needed. As someone said I have more guns than I need but not as many as I want.

Sorry for the rant!

I'd actually like to come and visit you Old Codger, that would be a good adventure for me. I sort of picture a log cabin in the woods and riding through from a long way away and stopping over and drinking bourbon from funny shaped flasks. Then going out with shotguns and shooting turkeys and rabbits and stuff and gutting them and hanging them up, and eating them a few days later.

But I'd be very sure to give you some notice before venturing over.

[old codger]

I'd actually like to come and visit you Old Codger, that would be a good adventure for me. I sort of picture a log cabin in the woods and riding through from a long way away and stopping over and drinking bourbon from funny shaped flasks. Then going out with shotguns and shooting turkeys and rabbits and stuff and gutting them and hanging them up, and eating them a few days later.

But I'd be very sure to give you some notice before venturing over.

You can see a photo of my "log cabin" if you look at my albums. I don't hunt and don't drink anything except water and soft drinks so your perception of me is almost totally wrong. I do live in the country though. The 2nd amendment is not about hunting!

[inspiron]

The other side of the argument comes from a policy decision taken by President Richard Nixon in the early 1970s. Nixon felt that the "hippies" of the time were a risk to national security, so he pushed through a lot of laws making drugs illegal. Of course, he didn't try to outlaw alcohol (he knew what happened when the 18th amendment passed, basically opening the door for organized crime in the USA) or tobacco (a huge industry and source of tax dollars), but he did make possession and sale of marijuana, heroin and other drugs illegal. As expected, making them illegal opened the door for organized crime (if the demand is there, someone will supply it), leading to the situation we have today. The Latin American drug lords are better equipped than the military, because they can afford to buy the best weapons. The turf war which has killed thousands could easily be stopped - simply make "recreational" drugs (marijuana, hash, etc.) legal for those over 18, much like cigarettes or alcohol. Instead of spending millions of dollars fighting something you can't prevent, why not turn the tables and earn millions in tax dollars?

Honestly, if someone choses to smoke a joint in the privacy of their own home, who cares? Why is this illegal? They aren't hurting anyone. It doesn't harm the environment any more than the billions of tobacco cigarettes that are smoked every day all over the world. As long as they don't drive or operate machinery while "impaired", why is there a law preventing it? Why spend hundreds of millions of dollars (and risk the lives of soldiers and border agents) when it does no harm?

[lighthiker90]

I agree in general with less laws and less government. I don't care what you believe as long as you are not hurting anyone. Pass your beliefs on to your children, maybe even share with your neighbors. Don't force it on anyone else and for Pete's sake don't legislate it!!!!