• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NY State Senate passes sweeping gun regulations

Dittohead not! said:
This looks like a perfect experiment to me.

If gun violence in NY shows a dramatic decrease after this bill is passed, then gun control works.
If it doesn't , then gun control doesn't work.

Anyone taking any bets?
Click to expand...

Guns cross State lines far too easily for any dramatic decreases in gun violence to occur from one States laws. Make those laws FEDERAL statutes and I'll take that bet.
 
head of joaquin said:
I'm willing to bet gun massacres either become less frequent or less deadly. And that's a big deal -- except for NRA types, who care more about their banana clips and macho assault rifles than the safety of school children.
Click to expand...

If they do it won't be because of this. Anyone bent enough to plan a massacre won't care two ****s about the law and high capacity mags are freely available on the black market or with a quick trip across state lines.
 
head of joaquin said:
I'm willing to bet gun massacres either become less frequent or less deadly. And that's a big deal -- except for NRA types, who care more about their banana clips and macho assault rifles than the safety of school children.
Click to expand...

You know what I could care less how many little children get wacked by firearms and the lunitics shooting em. **** em. What I do care about is my Constitutional Contract and the fact that I am getting ****ed out of what I was garenteed which was I could own what arms I saw fit and nessary for my and my families defence without some douche bag punks infinging upon my decisions. The constitutions garuntees my SOLE descretion in the decisions without interference. Civil society is based on contracts and upholding them. If you expect me to abide by my end, you better damn sure abide your end, which is to leave me the hell alone.
 
head of joaquin said:
I'm willing to bet gun massacres either become less frequent or less deadly. And that's a big deal -- except for NRA types, who care more about their banana clips and macho assault rifles than the safety of school children.
Click to expand...

It would be a big deal, but the history of reducing gun violence by passing gun control laws doesn't have a history of success.
 
Tigger said:
Actually, most modern 1911's are EIGHT round magazines (.45ACP). At least the full size and Commander length frames. The Officer's models are generally six rounds, in my experience. There are SOME pocket pistols that do fall within the guideline, but even my sub-compact Sig had an 8 round magazine (9mm).
Click to expand...

we are looking at magazine size, not total capacity. I personally do not own a 1911 style pistol, however, looking at springfield's, sig-sauer's, and colt's websites they list the magazine capacity at 7 rounds + 1 in the chamber. This may be where you are getting your 8 rounds from. If I am wrong please correct me.

Tigger said:
Bayonet Lug, Flash Suppressor, Magazine/Clip that loads in front of the trigger guard, pistol grip, collapsable/removable stock, accessory rail, etc....
Click to expand...

I know what they think the term means, I just personally feel that it is a stupid catch-all to mean things that they think are scary.
 
StubbornMoose said:
we are looking at magazine size, not total capacity. I personally do not own a 1911 style pistol, however, looking at springfield's, sig-sauer's, and colt's websites they list the magazine capacity at 7 rounds + 1 in the chamber. This may be where you are getting your 8 rounds from. If I am wrong please correct me.
Click to expand...

Eight + 1 mags are incredibly common for 1911 style guns chambered in .45ACP. They are what I've shot in competition for years. I do know that some people prefer the 7 + 1 configuration due to questions about reliability of feeding and changes in the spring which are required for the 8 + 1 configuration.

StubbornMoose said:
I know what they think the term means, I just personally feel that it is a stupid catch-all to mean things that they think are scary.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But that was simply intended as a list of what they see as characteristics of an "Assault Weapon".
 
Tigger said:
Eight + 1 mags are incredibly common for 1911 style guns chambered in .45ACP. They are what I've shot in competition for years. I do know that some people prefer the 7 + 1 configuration due to questions about reliability of feeding and changes in the spring which are required for the 8 + 1 configuration.



Agreed. But that was simply intended as a list of what they see as characteristics of an "Assault Weapon".
Click to expand...

Thank you for correcting me, good to know.
 
Dittohead not! said:
If NYC passes a strong gun control law, and if gun violence then goes down, it follows that it is possible that gun control works. if NYC passes a strong gun control law, and gun violence does not go down, then it follows that gun control doesn't work.

Likewise, if your car has thrown a rod, and an oil change doesn't make it run any better, then it follows that an oil change doesn't fix a thrown rod. I think the effectiveness of fixing a thrown rod by changing the oil is just as predictable as the effectiveness of reducing gun violence by passing strong gun control legislation, but that's just me. Since they've passed such a law, the next step is to turn on the ignition and see if the car runs. I'm betting against it.
Click to expand...

I agree with your assessment. So now we have several questions arising from it:

what exactly is a "strong gun control law"?
what exactly should it do?
how long do we give it to make an evaluation?
if this does not work, do we go for something stronger?
 
This is awesome! With any luck, their gun laws can be as restrictive as the laws in Chicago! and just as effective!
 
haymarket said:
I agree with your assessment. So now we have several questions arising from it:

1 what exactly is a "strong gun control law"?
2 what exactly should it do?
3 how long do we give it to make an evaluation?
4 if this does not work, do we go for something stronger?
Click to expand...

1.The kind they just passed in New York. (vague, yes, I know, but then, it's a matter of degree and interpretation)
2. cut back gun violence, of course. That's the stated purpose of the law, isn't it?
3. Shouldn't it start working as soon as it's passed? but, I'd say we should know in a year or so, and see if gun violence has declined, and by how much.
4. (sarcasm on) Oh, sure. If something doesn't work, it's always a good idea to double down on it. If one pill doesn't cure you, take two next time. If a law proves counter productive, pass a stronger one. (sarcasm off).
 
Dittohead not! said:
1.The kind they just passed in New York.
Click to expand...

How is it as STRONG GUN CONTROL LAW when it does nothing to control the millions of guns already in that state which can be used in criminal activity?

Your premise fails miserably right out of the gate.
 
haymarket said:
How is it as STRONG GUN CONTROL LAW when it does nothing to control the millions of guns already in that state which can be used in criminal activity?

Your premise fails miserably right out of the gate.
Click to expand...

How is it strong gun control? It deprives citizens of their rights under the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. You probably remember, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed thingy.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
You missed the best (worst?) part:



What moron would think this is not simply "step one"? Allowing all that now have "evil guns" to keep them ONLY if they are "registered" is insane. Once you "register" these EGs then what? Are private sales of NY's registered EGs still legal? This gets exactly ZERO guns "off the streets" yet increases the value of any "registered" EGs in NY quite a bit, creating a "monopoly" of these firearms.

I am unclear whether the bill contains a time limit for "registering" all of your "still temporarily legal" (grandfathered?) EGs or if all non-evil guns must also be registered (by that "drop dead" date too). I am surely glad that I do not live in the Peoples Republic of New York.

What happens to some poor slob that moves into NY 10 years from now and owns several EGs bought 2 years from now?
Click to expand...

You'd have a more reasonable conversation if you didn't make up terms like "evil guns."
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1061356467 said:
How is it strong gun control? It deprives citizens of their rights under the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. You probably remember, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed thingy.
Click to expand...

Weird how you didn't mention the first part of that amendment.

Besides, even you don't really believe the 2nd amendment is absolute. Unless you support privately-owned megaton-level nuclear weapons, that is.
 
Deuce said:
Weird how you didn't mention the first part of that amendment.
Click to expand...

Why should he have to mention it?

Deuce said:
Besides, even you don't really believe the 2nd amendment is absolute. Unless you support privately-owned megaton-level nuclear weapons, that is.
Click to expand...

I don't see anyone hollering for megaton-level nuclear weapons...do you? The only thing that I personally want (and most gun advocates will no doubt support this) is that we be allowed to carry and use the same weapons that your typical infantrymen carries in regards to guns.
 
iguanaman said:
Guns cross State lines far too easily for any dramatic decreases in gun violence to occur from one States laws. Make those laws FEDERAL statutes and I'll take that bet.
Click to expand...

If that's the case, why is Canada relatively calm?
The feds don't have a right to do so, without significant cause, as per the supremes.

States on the other hand, can regulate them to an extreme degree, but not completely ban them.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Why should he have to mention it?
Click to expand...

Because it says "a well-regulated militia."



I don't see anyone hollering for megaton-level nuclear weapons...do you? The only thing that I personally want (and most gun advocates will no doubt support this) is that we be allowed to carry and use the same weapons that your typical infantrymen carries in regards to guns.
Click to expand...

Yes. I know. So can people stop talking like any restriction on firearms is the same thing as repealing the second amendment?

Here's the thing. Typical infantryman weaponry has advanced a bit since 1776. Maybe there's a reasonable limit on destructive power that you'll find acceptable.
 
haymarket said:
How is it as STRONG GUN CONTROL LAW when it does nothing to control the millions of guns already in that state which can be used in criminal activity?

Your premise fails miserably right out of the gate.
Click to expand...

stopping criminal activity is not the intent of cuomo's law. He might be a gaping egomaniacal asshole but he is not that stupid. He just assumes most of the voters are.

he has made several shooting sports in NYS illegal now. He punished hundreds of thousands of people in order to pander to the low wattage voters and the gun haters.
 
Deuce said:
Because it says "a well-regulated militia."
Click to expand...

So? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." If read properly, using proper grammar, the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is not dependent upon "A well regulated Militia". Which means that the part with "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is an addendum.

Not to mention the writings of those that wrote the 2nd amendment clearly wanted the people, not just militia's, to own guns.

Deuce said:
Yes. I know. So can people stop talking like any restriction on firearms is the same thing as repealing the second amendment?
Click to expand...

There is a huge difference between reasonable restrictions and unreasonable. And to many unreasonable restrictions are just as bad as a total repealing of the 2nd amendment and might as well be the same. Because they know that there are those that are trying their damndest to make the 2nd amendment worthless. Which is in effect a repealing of it.

Deuce said:
Here's the thing. Typical infantryman weaponry has advanced a bit since 1776. Maybe there's a reasonable limit on destructive power that you'll find acceptable.
Click to expand...

Part of the main reason for the 2nd amendment was to be able to over throw a tyrannical government. I want to have just as much destructive firepower in my guns as the government has. My reasonable limit is rocket launchers, missiles, nukes. Everything else should be allowed to civilians.

You want to stop mass killings? Then lighten up on what it takes to commit someone and arm everyone. I guaruntee that mass killings in all those gun free zones in which they happen will slow down to a trickle if not stop entirely.
 
Deuce said:
Because it says "a well-regulated militia."



Yes. I know. So can people stop talking like any restriction on firearms is the same thing as repealing the second amendment?

Here's the thing. Typical infantryman weaponry has advanced a bit since 1776. Maybe there's a reasonable limit on destructive power that you'll find acceptable.
Click to expand...


if civilian police officers can use something for defense against criminals, the rest of us civilians should have the same tools. after all if the weapon is too destructive for most of us civilians, its too destructive for cops who have even more restrictions on the use of deadly force than we do

and where in the constitution did the second amendment contain a limitation based on the state of the art?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
If that's the case, why is Canada relatively calm?
The feds don't have a right to do so, without significant cause, as per the supremes.

States on the other hand, can regulate them to an extreme degree, but not completely ban them.
Click to expand...

Please, Canada is a God forsaken wasteland most of the year. Mexico would be a better example. All the best Mexican cartel weapons are bought right here at Walmart no less. It makes for a real party down there too, you must have heard about it. I'm sure the Mexican people appreciate us keeping their citizens well armed in spite of "repressive" Mexican gun laws. It make them so much safer.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1061356467 said:
How is it strong gun control? It deprives citizens of their rights under the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. You probably remember, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed thingy.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you can tell us how a citizen will now not be able to keep and bear arms because of this law?
 
TurtleDude said:
stopping criminal activity is not the intent of cuomo's law. He might be a gaping egomaniacal asshole but he is not that stupid. He just assumes most of the voters are.

he has made several shooting sports in NYS illegal now. He punished hundreds of thousands of people in order to pander to the low wattage voters and the gun haters.
Click to expand...

Who has he stopped?

Who has he punished?

Details please.
 
haymarket said:
Who has he stopped?

Who has he punished?

Details please.
Click to expand...
anyone who wants to own the same defensive weapons that his security detail enjoys

most of the high speed action oriented pistol and rifle events

many target events that are based on 10 round strings

the workers of companies that will now most likely move out of NY
 
iguanaman said:
Please, Canada is a God forsaken wasteland most of the year. Mexico would be a better example. All the best Mexican cartel weapons are bought right here at Walmart no less. It makes for a real party down there too, you must have heard about it. I'm sure the Mexican people appreciate us keeping their citizens well armed in spite of "repressive" Mexican gun laws. It make them so much safer.
Click to expand...

Sorry, that's not gonna cut it.
If it were just because of border access, then Canada would be as bad as Mexico.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom