Commanders Post at The Warpath  

Home | Forums | Donate | Shop




Go Back   Commanders Post at The Warpath > Off-Topic Discussion > Debating with the enemy

Debating with the enemy Discuss politics, current events, and other hot button issues here.


Gun Control Thread- Should we?

Debating with the enemy


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-14-2013, 09:05 PM   #1
HailGreen28
Playmaker
 
HailGreen28's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,754
Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?

New York just went full retard.

Gov. Cuomo and legislative leaders were on the verge Sunday night of finalizing a major gun-control deal that would give New York the nation’s toughest assault weapons ban, sources told the Daily News.

I like the tying of mental health to gun ownership. The devil (or angel) of that will be in the details. But the rest... ban of private sales, some weapons, ammunition limits, all this will do nothing to reduce crime or violence.

And the whole pre 1994 thing is NOT a "loophole". Is the mag restriction also non-grandfather clause? Ex post facto if so...and makes previous law abiding citizens into instant felons. While still doing nothing positive.

It'll be interesting to see what emerges, and if anything is struck down judicially.
HailGreen28 is offline  
Old 01-16-2013, 04:41 AM   #2
Giantone
Gamebreaker
 
Giantone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 14,603
Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?

Quote:
Originally Posted by HailGreen28 View Post
New York just went full retard.

Gov. Cuomo and legislative leaders were on the verge Sunday night of finalizing a major gun-control deal that would give New York the nation’s toughest assault weapons ban, sources told the Daily News.

I like the tying of mental health to gun ownership. The devil (or angel) of that will be in the details. But the rest... ban of private sales, some weapons, ammunition limits, all this will do nothing to reduce crime or violence.

And the whole pre 1994 thing is NOT a "loophole". Is the mag restriction also non-grandfather clause? Ex post facto if so...and makes previous law abiding citizens into instant felons. While still doing nothing positive.

It'll be interesting to see what emerges, and if anything is struck down judicially.

Done deal.Maryland next

New York passes nation's toughest gun control law | NJ.com

York state enacted the nation's toughest gun restrictions today and the first since the Connecticut school massacre, including an expanded assault-weapon ban and background checks for buying ammunition.
Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed the measure into law less than an hour after it won final passage in the Legislature, with supporters hailing it as a model for the nation and gun-rights activists condemning it as a knee-jerk piece of legislation that won't make anyone safer and is too extreme to win support in the rest of the country.
"Common sense can win," Cuomo said. "You can overpower the extremists with intelligence and with reason and with common sense."
__________________
....DISCLAIMER: All of my posts/threads are my expressed typed opinion and the reader is not to assume these comments are absolute fact, law, or truth unless otherwise stated in said post/thread.
Giantone is offline  
Old 01-16-2013, 09:57 AM   #3
RedskinRat
Franchise Player
 
RedskinRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: I'm in LA, trick!
Posts: 8,700
Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giantone View Post
"Common sense can win," Cuomo said. "You can overpower the extremists with intelligence and with reason and with common sense."
I love the use of words like 'Overpower' and 'Extremists' when discussing law abiding gun owners.

Bravo, noble sheepleherder, bravo!
RedskinRat is offline  
Old 01-16-2013, 12:18 PM   #4
FRPLG
MVP
 
FRPLG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Age: 47
Posts: 10,164
Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinRat View Post
I love the use of words like 'Overpower' and 'Extremists' when discussing law abiding gun owners.

Bravo, noble sheepleherder, bravo!
I agree. I think this might apply here.

Articles: The Left's Greatest Mind-Trick: Politicizing Emotion
FRPLG is offline  
Old 01-16-2013, 07:01 PM   #5
HailGreen28
Playmaker
 
HailGreen28's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,754
Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giantone View Post
Done deal.Maryland next

New York passes nation's toughest gun control law | NJ.com

York state enacted the nation's toughest gun restrictions today and the first since the Connecticut school massacre, including an expanded assault-weapon ban and background checks for buying ammunition.
Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed the measure into law less than an hour after it won final passage in the Legislature, with supporters hailing it as a model for the nation and gun-rights activists condemning it as a knee-jerk piece of legislation that won't make anyone safer and is too extreme to win support in the rest of the country.
"Common sense can win," Cuomo said. "You can overpower the extremists with intelligence and with reason and with common sense."
Full. Retard. Cuomo's gun control bill, and your post.

Look at the actual bill. LINK The first idiocy found: Page 22. Starting at line 6. Bold mine, though the whole paragraph is horrible.

"265.01-b Criminal_possession of a firearm. A person is guilty of criminal possession of a firearm when he or she: (1) possesses any firearm or; (2) lawfully possesses a firearm prior to the effective date of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this section subject to the registration requirements of subdivision sixteen-a of section 400.00 of this chapter and knowingly fails to register such firearm pursuant to such subdivision.

Criminal possession of a firearm is a Class E felony."

If the Second Amendment's still in existence, and there's any common sense and respect for the law, this law gets completely thrown out in the first court case.

At this point I'm not expecting the president's "proposals" to be any smarter or effective.

edit: Looking here (LINK) and here (LINK) to look for context after seeing there's no outrage over the quote I listed elsewhere on the web. And there's even more stringent weapon control in § 265.01 at the second link... It doesn't seem like the above refers to just persons committing other crimes. The language suggests an out-right ban, yet if so 265.01 would already outlaw many weapons and non-weapons. What am I missing here?

Last edited by HailGreen28; 01-16-2013 at 11:06 PM.
HailGreen28 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
We have no official affiliation with the Washington Commanders or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.92645 seconds with 11 queries