CDZ Are anti gunners serious when they say they will stop at 10 round magazines?

[JoeB131]

Your gun rights credentials are thin at best.

Simple question, is the fact I have to spend $400 or so and wait 3-6 months in NYC simply to get a home use revolver license infringement or not?

Depends.

If they are taking that time and to make sure you aren't a nutcase or a criminal, then it's not an infringement at all.

If they are just taking that money and time because they can... or to make the process so difficult you give up, you might have a point.

 

[martybegan]

Your gun rights credentials are thin at best.

Simple question, is the fact I have to spend $400 or so and wait 3-6 months in NYC simply to get a home use revolver license infringement or not?

Depends.

If they are taking that time and to make sure you aren't a nutcase or a criminal, then it's not an infringement at all.

If they are just taking that money and time because they can... or to make the process so difficult you give up, you might have a point.

How much actual work do you think the NYPD does for one of these applications?

The whole point is to discourage people from applying.

How nuts would people go if they made you wait 3 months to register to vote to make sure you were eligible?

 

[JoeB131]

How much actual work do you think the NYPD does for one of these applications?

Have no idea. If that isn't what the money is going for, then that is wrong. I think I made that pretty clear.

The fact that every time there is a mass shooting, we find out there was no good reason for this person to have a gun, but they were able to get them anyway.

so how about this- We have a background check, one time. Costs $500.00 and they actually talk to your coworkers, neighbors, etc. to make sure you aren't someone who shouldn't have a gun, but once you've passed the check, you can have as many guns as you want.

The whole point is to discourage people from applying.

How nuts would people go if they made you wait 3 months to register to vote to make sure you were eligible?

can you kill someone with a vote?

 

[martybegan]

How much actual work do you think the NYPD does for one of these applications?

Have no idea. If that isn't what the money is going for, then that is wrong. I think I made that pretty clear.

The fact that every time there is a mass shooting, we find out there was no good reason for this person to have a gun, but they were able to get them anyway.

so how about this- We have a background check, one time. Costs $500.00 and they actually talk to your coworkers, neighbors, etc. to make sure you aren't someone who shouldn't have a gun, but once you've passed the check, you can have as many guns as you want.

The whole point is to discourage people from applying.

How nuts would people go if they made you wait 3 months to register to vote to make sure you were eligible?

can you kill someone with a vote?

You can kill a country with a vote. Just ask the people of Venezuela about their current buyers remorse.

The problem with your first concept is that the control people will want that to be first every 5 years, then 2 years, then 1 year etc etc.

Your system still requires permission from some bureaucrat that isn't held accountable to anyone. he can just decide "no guns for anyone" and that's it.

Convict criminals of felonies, adjudicate people who are mentally unfit. prosecute people who shouldn't have a gun when they try to get one.

 

[JoeB131]

You can kill a country with a vote. Just ask the people of Venezuela about their current buyers remorse.

Really, I thought that had more to do with the rest of the world economically punishing them for a decade and a half for picking a leader we didn't like, but never mind.

The problem with your first concept is that the control people will want that to be first every 5 years, then 2 years, then 1 year etc etc.

Your system still requires permission from some bureaucrat that isn't held accountable to anyone. he can just decide "no guns for anyone" and that's it.

And that would be a bad thing, why?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You can kill a country with a vote. Just ask the people of Venezuela about their current buyers remorse.

Really, I thought that had more to do with the rest of the world economically punishing them for a decade and a half for picking a leader we didn't like, but never mind.

The problem with your first concept is that the control people will want that to be first every 5 years, then 2 years, then 1 year etc etc.

Your system still requires permission from some bureaucrat that isn't held accountable to anyone. he can just decide "no guns for anyone" and that's it.

And that would be a bad thing, why?

how about we get rid of the 5th amendment, it kills people and lets murderers walk. how about we get rid of the 1st amendment it too kills people.

 

[BULLDOG]

Are anti gunners serious when they say they will stop at 10 round magazines?

nope

let not one of their treasonous bills pass

The only part of that little story that is accurate is the gun nut saying he is not reasonable. This isn't about cake. It's about lots of dead people who shouldn't be dead,

It is an apt analogy to the fact that gun rights people have been "compromising" for decades now and all we get is more attempts at restriction.

Most people are gun rights people. I'm a gun rights person. What you mean is gun extremists, or commonly known as gun nuts.

Your gun rights credentials are thin at best.

Simple question, is the fact I have to spend $400 or so and wait 3-6 months in NYC simply to get a home use revolver license infringement or not?

That is not the case nationally. You'll have to talk to NYC about that. I thought you were all for states rights.

 

[JoeB131]

how about we get rid of the 5th amendment, it kills people and lets murderers walk. how about we get rid of the 1st amendment it too kills people.

Not really. But do keep trying.

Here's the thing, does it make sense to still have a second amendment now? We don't hunt for food, we don't have local militias. While the valid need for guns has gone down, the lethality of what the gun industry puts on the market increases, and that's the problem.

Look, I realize that some of you have to have your guns, for whatever irrational psychological reasons you want them, but you have yet to tell me how you are going to keep them out of the hands of crazy people.

 

[martybegan]

You can kill a country with a vote. Just ask the people of Venezuela about their current buyers remorse.

Really, I thought that had more to do with the rest of the world economically punishing them for a decade and a half for picking a leader we didn't like, but never mind.

The problem with your first concept is that the control people will want that to be first every 5 years, then 2 years, then 1 year etc etc.

Your system still requires permission from some bureaucrat that isn't held accountable to anyone. he can just decide "no guns for anyone" and that's it.

And that would be a bad thing, why?

They had oil, they could have sold it to anyone, and the failure of socialism is always someone else's fault.

You really want your rights decided by some guy who isn't elected and has Public union protection?

 

[martybegan]

The only part of that little story that is accurate is the gun nut saying he is not reasonable. This isn't about cake. It's about lots of dead people who shouldn't be dead,

It is an apt analogy to the fact that gun rights people have been "compromising" for decades now and all we get is more attempts at restriction.

Most people are gun rights people. I'm a gun rights person. What you mean is gun extremists, or commonly known as gun nuts.

Your gun rights credentials are thin at best.

Simple question, is the fact I have to spend $400 or so and wait 3-6 months in NYC simply to get a home use revolver license infringement or not?

That is not the case nationally. You'll have to talk to NYC about that. I thought you were all for states rights.

You didn't answer the question.

And I am for federalism, which means States have certain areas of governance reserved for themselves.

However I am also a strict constructionist, and my RKBA overrides any States "rights" otherwise.

 

[cnm]

So, still no example of 'anti-gunners' saying they will stop at 10 round magazines? I'm shocked, shocked I say.

 

[BULLDOG]

The only part of that little story that is accurate is the gun nut saying he is not reasonable. This isn't about cake. It's about lots of dead people who shouldn't be dead,

It is an apt analogy to the fact that gun rights people have been "compromising" for decades now and all we get is more attempts at restriction.

Most people are gun rights people. I'm a gun rights person. What you mean is gun extremists, or commonly known as gun nuts.

Your gun rights credentials are thin at best.

Simple question, is the fact I have to spend $400 or so and wait 3-6 months in NYC simply to get a home use revolver license infringement or not?

That is not the case nationally. You'll have to talk to NYC about that. I thought you were all for states rights.

You didn't answer the question.

And I am for federalism, which means States have certain areas of governance reserved for themselves.

However I am also a strict constructionist, and my RKBA overrides any States "rights" otherwise.

I am not knowledgeable about every local law concerning guns. I'm sure there is more to the law than you have given. I do know the federal law, and that is what I am discussing. Federal law effects all of us. Your local laws are up to you to fix. I live 1600 miles and 6 0r 8 states away.

 

[martybegan]

It is an apt analogy to the fact that gun rights people have been "compromising" for decades now and all we get is more attempts at restriction.

Most people are gun rights people. I'm a gun rights person. What you mean is gun extremists, or commonly known as gun nuts.

Your gun rights credentials are thin at best.

Simple question, is the fact I have to spend $400 or so and wait 3-6 months in NYC simply to get a home use revolver license infringement or not?

That is not the case nationally. You'll have to talk to NYC about that. I thought you were all for states rights.

You didn't answer the question.

And I am for federalism, which means States have certain areas of governance reserved for themselves.

However I am also a strict constructionist, and my RKBA overrides any States "rights" otherwise.

I am not knowledgeable about every local law concerning guns. I'm sure there is more to the law than you have given. I do know the federal law, and that is what I am discussing. Federal law effects all of us. Your local laws are up to you to fix. I live 1600 miles and 6 0r 8 states away.

Dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge.

I have summarized the rules quite clearly. Just answer, yes or no, do you consider it infringement?

 

[BULLDOG]

Most people are gun rights people. I'm a gun rights person. What you mean is gun extremists, or commonly known as gun nuts.

Your gun rights credentials are thin at best.

Simple question, is the fact I have to spend $400 or so and wait 3-6 months in NYC simply to get a home use revolver license infringement or not?

That is not the case nationally. You'll have to talk to NYC about that. I thought you were all for states rights.

You didn't answer the question.

And I am for federalism, which means States have certain areas of governance reserved for themselves.

However I am also a strict constructionist, and my RKBA overrides any States "rights" otherwise.

I am not knowledgeable about every local law concerning guns. I'm sure there is more to the law than you have given. I do know the federal law, and that is what I am discussing. Federal law effects all of us. Your local laws are up to you to fix. I live 1600 miles and 6 0r 8 states away.

Dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge.

I have summarized the rules quite clearly. Just answer, yes or no, do you consider it infringement?

From what you've told me about NYC gun laws, and I highly doubt that you have given a complete description of them, they could be. Unfortunately, I'm not a constitutional scholar. I will defer to what the State or Federal Supreme Court says. The constitution assigned them that job. Have either of those courts ruled on those laws?

 

[martybegan]

Your gun rights credentials are thin at best.

Simple question, is the fact I have to spend $400 or so and wait 3-6 months in NYC simply to get a home use revolver license infringement or not?

That is not the case nationally. You'll have to talk to NYC about that. I thought you were all for states rights.

You didn't answer the question.

And I am for federalism, which means States have certain areas of governance reserved for themselves.

However I am also a strict constructionist, and my RKBA overrides any States "rights" otherwise.

I am not knowledgeable about every local law concerning guns. I'm sure there is more to the law than you have given. I do know the federal law, and that is what I am discussing. Federal law effects all of us. Your local laws are up to you to fix. I live 1600 miles and 6 0r 8 states away.

Dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge.

I have summarized the rules quite clearly. Just answer, yes or no, do you consider it infringement?

From what you've told me about NYC gun laws, and I highly doubt that you have given a complete description of them, they could be. Unfortunately, I'm not a constitutional scholar. I will defer to what the State or Federal Supreme Court says. The constitution assigned them that job. Have either of those courts ruled on those laws?

Why can't you form your own opinion?

Getting A NYC Handgun Permit | New York City Guns

The page seems to be a bit wonky on my browser, highlight the text to read it if you have the same issue.

 

[rightwinger]

10 rounds?

Screw that

Someone wanting to shoot up a church or elementary schools needs as big a magazine as he can get

 

[BULLDOG]

That is not the case nationally. You'll have to talk to NYC about that. I thought you were all for states rights.

You didn't answer the question.

And I am for federalism, which means States have certain areas of governance reserved for themselves.

However I am also a strict constructionist, and my RKBA overrides any States "rights" otherwise.

I am not knowledgeable about every local law concerning guns. I'm sure there is more to the law than you have given. I do know the federal law, and that is what I am discussing. Federal law effects all of us. Your local laws are up to you to fix. I live 1600 miles and 6 0r 8 states away.

Dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge.

I have summarized the rules quite clearly. Just answer, yes or no, do you consider it infringement?

From what you've told me about NYC gun laws, and I highly doubt that you have given a complete description of them, they could be. Unfortunately, I'm not a constitutional scholar. I will defer to what the State or Federal Supreme Court says. The constitution assigned them that job. Have either of those courts ruled on those laws?

Why can't you form your own opinion?

Getting A NYC Handgun Permit | New York City Guns

The page seems to be a bit wonky on my browser, highlight the text to read it if you have the same issue.

Because I'm not qualified to make rulings on constitutionality of NEW York laws. They seem kinda stiff, but the SC said they were fine. I don't have a problem with them.

 

[Humorme]

The left always says they just want common sense gun control....and one of those measures they always want is a limit on 10 bullets for all magazines

Now, keep in mind, this will not limit the deaths in mass shootings, as actual research shows. The killers, like the guy in Texas had plenty of magazines and changed them 14 times while he was murdering those people.

And Criminals won't care about a 10 round limit because they will just get theirs illegally, and they can rape a woman just as easily with a 10 round magazine, murder a rival or rob someone.

The only people a 10 round magazine limit effects is the law abiding gun owner, who does not commit any crime or murder. People who have guns that take 15-19 rounds in their pistols...will now be criminals if they don't do something with their guns.....dittos rifles that will take 30 round magazines.....

I have listed the points made by David Kopel on why law abiding people need more than 10 rounds, in other places and would happily do so again. I have also posted the ruling by the California judge placing a hold on the new California magazine ban where he accurately takes apart all of the arguments made against 10 round magazines.

The question, however, is this.........if the anti gunners get all the 15-30 round magazines....will they leave the 10 round magazines alone?

Keep in mind, the Santa Barbara shooter used 10 round magazines to murder 6 people.......

Rather to have this discussion, let me say a picture is worth a thousand words. In this case, this video is of an incident that happened in my neighborhood.

SEE IT: Georgia woman shoots at home invaders, kills one

I won't carry less than 15 rounds per mag, but the government is not qualified to tell me what limit I can defend myself with.

 

[Humorme]

The group think is amazing.

Give me your bumpstocks and I'll let you keep your mags.

I have no dog in the bump stock fight........mags and Civilian rifles though, you don't get those...

You DO have a dog in the fight. I passed on bump stocks many times. But if you don't understand the legal principles you end up with precedents that ban what you own because you did not protect the other guy's Rights.

Incrementalism and this negotiating your Rights away is just a slow road to a complete repeal of the Second Amendment.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Do you think full auto's and armed Abrams tanks should be legal for me to purchase?

I do. The point of the 2nd was to have a well armed citizenry to keep the government in check, and be able to resist if said government became tyrannical. Is there any threat of our government becoming tyrannical today? No, of course not. The same was once true of pre-American revolution England too though, so that argument rings pretty hollow for most pro-2nd students of history. There is, and cannot be, a law(s) that would permanently prevent a government from becoming oppressive and tyrannical, therefore we MUST have the option of being able to mount an effective resistance to such oppression and tyranny.

So, as long as the military has full autos and tanks, we should maintain the RIGHT to acquire and possess them as well.

FWIW, I draw the line at nukes. It is my opinion that nukes should remain a purely strategic weapon, and NEVER be used. I wish we could live in a world without them, unfortunately that is impossible. However, there is no reasonable use for such weapons in a government resistance scenario for either side, therefore there is no reasonable reason for civilians to acquire or possess them. There MAY be other weapons systems too, such as a "Strategic Missile Defense" system that would be impractical for civilians.

How much of an effective resistance do you think a few rifles and handguns will be against our military? Admit that your silly fantasy about resisting the government has no relation to reality, and gun nuts are just doing what gun nuts do.

Do you think full auto's and armed Abrams tanks should be legal for me to purchase?

I do. The point of the 2nd was to have a well armed citizenry to keep the government in check, and be able to resist if said government became tyrannical. Is there any threat of our government becoming tyrannical today? No, of course not. The same was once true of pre-American revolution England too though, so that argument rings pretty hollow for most pro-2nd students of history. There is, and cannot be, a law(s) that would permanently prevent a government from becoming oppressive and tyrannical, therefore we MUST have the option of being able to mount an effective resistance to such oppression and tyranny.

So, as long as the military has full autos and tanks, we should maintain the RIGHT to acquire and possess them as well.

FWIW, I draw the line at nukes. It is my opinion that nukes should remain a purely strategic weapon, and NEVER be used. I wish we could live in a world without them, unfortunately that is impossible. However, there is no reasonable use for such weapons in a government resistance scenario for either side, therefore there is no reasonable reason for civilians to acquire or possess them. There MAY be other weapons systems too, such as a "Strategic Missile Defense" system that would be impractical for civilians.

How much of an effective resistance do you think a few rifles and handguns will be against our military? Admit that your silly fantasy about resisting the government has no relation to reality, and gun nuts are just doing what gun nuts do.

You really are a liar aren't you? Either that or you are clueless.

clueless