2nd Ammendment died in New York

[Nate4641]

OH, look what I found

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...v=oyb3gBaqlwk#!

[ragingclue]

Originally Posted by Nate4641

I have hated pretty much every Texan I have ever met personally, but I am honestly starting to consider the idea of moving there when I retire.

Haha yeah you and me both.

[bolinp78]

Originally Posted by Nate4641

I have hated pretty much every Texan I have ever met personally, but I am honestly starting to consider the idea of moving there when I retire.

We're all a bunch of assholes, don't bother.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

But is that true for every gun owner who could utter that sentence today ? Probably not. If I wanted to keep my guns and stop the current legislation, I'd work on an argument which does not deny that fact, but acknowledges it and provides an answer to that concern.

Even the mental background checks on gun and ammo buyers being discussed would not have made any difference at Sandy Hook. They'd have to be far more intrusive, to cover anyone in your life who could possibly get at the gun.

Last time I got car insurance, I was asked who else has access to driving the car.

Perhaps the NRA would enjoy a more sympathetic ear from non-gun owners if they threw that on the table, and said, we'd support these more intrusive checks for immediate family, etc.

The NRA takes a stance by the literal words of the amendment. In some respect i can understand that some things may not be relevant now as it was then and some things may be relevant now as it wasn't then.

For instance, when the amendment was written everyone in the household was trained to use a rifle effectively at a very early age. They were taught to respect all adults and elders. They were taught that disobeying their parents or elders came with strict consequences. And there were not nearly as many mentally ill people as there are now.

Today, the early training and teaching of children happen much less frequently. In addition, we now have emo people and many more mentally unstable people in the world.

This is something that the NRA and gun owners alike should put some focus on. In this respect, simply allowing any citizen the right to bare arms doesn't make sense. Citizens who are convicted of violent crimes are disallowed this right. People who are under 21 years of age are disallowed this right. I don't see why the mentally ill can't be disallowed this right as well. Just as the insurance companies have a right to know how many people are in your house hold (because they MIGHT drive that car) knowing who lives with you when you get a back ground check IS something that should be check up on.

However, just because i have a child with a mental illness doesn't mean i can't have guns. it just means there will be some extra precautions i must take in order to do so. in addition i should be made aware that should my mentally ill child use my firearm in a crime that i will be charged as an accessory to that crime.

Things do get sticky when say a woman who want's to own a gun is married to a person who was convicted of a violent crime. I suppose the same would apply if she were married to a mentally ill person. After all it's not like people who aren't allowed to OWN guns aren't allowed to shoot them in a lawful manner.

[MisterSkiMask]

I think one good thing would be harsh penalties for the registered owner of any gun used in a crime. If the guy who pulled the trigger got murder 1 maybe the registered owner get murder 2.

This would encourage gun owners to properly store their firearms, report a stolen firearm, and properly transfer a sold firearm.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by MisterSkiMask

I think one good thing would be harsh penalties for the registered owner of any gun used in a crime. If the guy who pulled the trigger got murder 1 maybe the registered owner get murder 2.

This would encourage gun owners to properly store their firearms, report a stolen firearm, and properly transfer a sold firearm.

That idea sounds like a good start.

As far as I can tell, they way it is today, Adam Lanza's mother actually did nothing illegal herself. If you could magically bring her back to life, could you then charge her with anything? Obviously you could charge him if he was alive, but her? Accessory to murder wont stick in most places today since usually you must prove the accused had actual knowledge that a crime was going to be committed. A taxi driver who unknowingly drops a killer off at his victims house cannot be charged with accessory to murder. His mother bought the guns and ammo legally, she used them in a legal manner.

That's the thing. People say I've lost credibility by saying she was a responsible gun owner, but the point I was trying to make is that if the regulations are so damn relaxed that the way she enabled this horrible event does not constitute a crime on her part, then how can anyone argue that a tightening of said regulations about this is a crazy knee-jerk reaction? To me, clinging to that position in light of what happened creates a loss of credibility.

[Hawkeye]

Originally Posted by ZJP

Bend over and grab the lube.

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/natio...187077641.html

His executive orders, the ones they listed anyway, seem good to me. Addresses more of the real issue. The new legislation he wants on the other hand...

There are only 2 I took issue with really. The one allowing doctors to ask about gun in the home (seems weird, unless psychiatric) and the full background check before returning seized weapon, cause they can seize for any number of reasons yeah?

[Nate4641]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

His executive orders, the ones they listed anyway, seem good to me. Addresses more of the real issue. The new legislation he wants on the other hand...

There are only 2 I took issue with really. The one allowing doctors to ask about gun in the home (seems weird, unless psychiatric) and the full background check before returning seized weapon, cause they can seize for any number of reasons yeah?

What scares me is that they are treating the group of ideas as a whole instead of discussing them one by one. There are a lot of good ideas out there that work for both sides, but they can't be lumped together or else you get massive oversights like in New York.

[Templar]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

That's the thing. People say I've lost credibility by saying she was a responsible gun owner, but the point I was trying to make is that if the regulations are so damn relaxed that the way she enabled this horrible event does not constitute a crime on her part, then how can anyone argue that a tightening of said regulations about this is a crazy knee-jerk reaction? To me, clinging to that position in light of what happened creates a loss of credibility.

Leaving your guns unsecure is not being responsible. Not knowing your own child well enough to understand they have serious issues (and shouldn't even touch a gun) is not being responsible. How can you say she was responsible? Her son stole her weapons because they were unsecure, that is the farthest thing from responsibility. Please, stop trying to turn it around on me because you chose to phrase your argument poorly.

As far as the points made, I have no problems coming down harder on people who fail to report stolen weapons, or people who sell their weapons to murderers and criminals, but that isn't what happened in NY State... That logic has been IGNORED by the NY Governor. He'd much rather let killers only use 7 bullets at a time instead of 10...

[MediaArtist]

Anyone calling Ms. Lanza a responsible gun owner has lost credibility in my eyes as well.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Wow... It's really quite frustrating when you say something in facetious way that normally is very effective at illustrating a point, and it's missed completely because people defensively fixate on the wrong thing. (sigh)

Let's try again. If this still doesn't work, then I give up.

How can I say she's was responsible? Well, legally speaking, she was not being irresponsible, otherwise there would be a specific crime to charge her with. As we all know, a legal opinion is the only opinion that has teeth. You subjective opinion, or my subjective opinion, wont affect someone's life any more than my cat's opinion.

I can call you a thief, but unless the law agrees with that, it does not cause you to suffer the penalties a real thief would. There is no distinction in the lifestyle of an innocent person or a guilty person unless the law says you are a guilty person.

The point I'm trying to make is that under the only system of judgement that affects the real world, she did nothing wrong. If pro-gun people subjectively feel that ain't right (and it seems like many do), then I'd think they'd all be in favor of taking a look at making the laws more strict, so that there would be greater alignment between what sanctions can be imposed in the real world, and what sanctions they'd like to see imposed.

Yet, many (not all) of the people who vilify her are also quick to be hyper defensive at the first suggestion of any gun laws (and I'm NOT just talking about the silly 7-round-rule, I'm talking about ANY dialog regarding tightening things up, this thread has included more fundamental discussion points than just the NY law). It's like "stop right there, I wont even finish listening to what you have to say if if might come within a 1000 mile radius of any possible interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and I'm not open to legally revising it first either". You dont normally see that sort of, well, lack of appetite to consider negotiation, outside of the relationship between the executive and legislative branches of gov.

Honestly, I think if someone suggested re-instituting alcohol prohibition, that would get less of a rise out of people than, "lets talk about your guns".

[MediaArtist]

Sure, there is a "legal interpretation" of responsible.

But anyone who leaves fire power like that unsecured is simply irresponsible by the definition of the word itself.

For instance, it's not technically illegal to leave your car running in your garage with all the doors and windows sealed shut while you work on your car, but it's very irresponsible.

Anyone calling what Ms. Lanza did "responsible" has lost credibility or doesn't know the meaning of the word, plain and simple, regardless of any invented strawmen arguments.

[MisterSkiMask]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

Wow... It's really quite frustrating when you say something in facetious way that normally is very effective at illustrating a point, and it's missed completely because people defensively fixate on the wrong thing. (sigh)

Let's try again. If this still doesn't work, then I give up.

How can I say she's was responsible? Well, legally speaking, she was not being irresponsible, otherwise there would be a specific crime to charge her with. As we all know, a legal opinion is the only opinion that has teeth. You subjective opinion, or my subjective opinion, wont affect someone's life any more than my cat's opinion.

I can call you a thief, but unless the law agrees with that, it does not cause you to suffer the penalties a real thief would. There is no distinction in the lifestyle of an innocent person or a guilty person unless the law says you are a guilty person.

The point I'm trying to make is that under the only system of judgement that affects the real world, she did nothing wrong. If pro-gun people subjectively feel that ain't right (and it seems like many do), then I'd think they'd all be in favor of taking a look at making the laws more strict, so that there would be greater alignment between what sanctions can be imposed in the real world, and what sanctions they'd like to see imposed.

Yet, many (not all) of the people who vilify her are also quick to be hyper defensive at the first suggestion of any gun laws (and I'm NOT just talking about the silly 7-round-rule, I'm talking about ANY dialog regarding tightening things up, this thread has included more fundamental discussion points than just the NY law). It's like "stop right there, I wont even finish listening to what you have to say if if might come within a 1000 mile radius of any possible interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and I'm not open to legally revising it first either". You dont normally see that sort of, well, lack of appetite to consider negotiation, outside of the relationship between the executive and legislative branches of gov.

Honestly, I think if someone suggested re-instituting alcohol prohibition, that would get less of a rise out of people than, "lets talk about your guns".

As a responsible gun owner (I own just over 20 firearms, that are all locked in safes), I can not and do not consider anyone who doesn’t do the same a responsible gun owner. I concede it is very convenient for me to make that statement, but it is true and my guns have always been locked up.

The reason we gun owners are hyper defensive about anything that infringes on our rights is that the anti-gunners are using a tragedy to further their agenda. If they really cared about saving lives they would look at statistics and data and find that their proposals will do nothing, they are out for political equity and control. The cynic in me wonders what really shady back room deals are going down while we are all busy arguing about this.

We also see this as a ‘slippery slope’ and we want to stop these clowns before they can get any momentum.

I think I speak for most gun owners when I say, we don’t think that guns are the problem. Mental health and bad people are the problem. We should not allow these things to mix, but that seems to be a very small part of the discussion, and there are many problems there too.

[Templar]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

Wow... It's really quite frustrating when you say something in facetious way that normally is very effective at illustrating a point, and it's missed completely because people defensively fixate on the wrong thing. (sigh)

Let's try again. If this still doesn't work, then I give up.

How can I say she's was responsible? Well, legally speaking, she was not being irresponsible, otherwise there would be a specific crime to charge her with. As we all know, a legal opinion is the only opinion that has teeth. You subjective opinion, or my subjective opinion, wont affect someone's life any more than my cat's opinion.

I can call you a thief, but unless the law agrees with that, it does not cause you to suffer the penalties a real thief would. There is no distinction in the lifestyle of an innocent person or a guilty person unless the law says you are a guilty person.

The point I'm trying to make is that under the only system of judgement that affects the real world, she did nothing wrong. If pro-gun people subjectively feel that ain't right (and it seems like many do), then I'd think they'd all be in favor of taking a look at making the laws more strict, so that there would be greater alignment between what sanctions can be imposed in the real world, and what sanctions they'd like to see imposed.

Yet, many (not all) of the people who vilify her are also quick to be hyper defensive at the first suggestion of any gun laws (and I'm NOT just talking about the silly 7-round-rule, I'm talking about ANY dialog regarding tightening things up, this thread has included more fundamental discussion points than just the NY law). It's like "stop right there, I wont even finish listening to what you have to say if if might come within a 1000 mile radius of any possible interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and I'm not open to legally revising it first either". You dont normally see that sort of, well, lack of appetite to consider negotiation, outside of the relationship between the executive and legislative branches of gov.

Honestly, I think if someone suggested re-instituting alcohol prohibition, that would get less of a rise out of people than, "lets talk about your guns".

The majority of responsible firearms owners are open to harsher punishments, and actually enforcing current laws (which is a big problem right now). Just because you see extremists on both sides on TV doesn't mean that's how all gun owners are. You're the one that mentions polls, yet you seem to be ignoring them yourself. Take a poll in this thread and tell me what you come up with.

There will always be extremists on both sides of the argument. But while the more "middle of the road" folks are offering up logical solutions, only the "let's ban all guns" or "we need access to RPG's too" people find themselves on TV. Now it seems like you're backpedaling. How many people in this thread said they would have a problem with harsher punishments for those involved with crimes with guns? Or those who sell them to people who commit these atrocities? When it comes to stripping the weapons from law abiding gun owners, or labeling something an "assault weapon" and saying it should be banned because of the way it looks, that's when the MAJORITY of owners become defensive.

Tell me. Do you have any idea what the purpose of a flash suppressor on an AR-15 is? Can you tell me how that changes the functionality of the rifle? I'll wait while you google it...

And also:

I dont live in fear of being shot, so it's harder for me to understand the "I need to protect myself" argument. I've never been shot at, either, so that could change my tune. I hope I dont find out... I do get the recreational user tho, but I still think there's a place for stronger regulations. Adam Lanza's mother was a responsible recreational gun owner too, who legally got her guns and would probably have easily passed any mental health or background test you gave her. She probably wouldnt have hurt a fly.

You straight up said she was a responsible gun owner. Legally obtaining a firearm is only one piece of being a responsible owner, and you'd know that if you knew anything about gun ownership. If she was truly a responsible owner, this tragedy would never have happened. You didn't illustrate a point when you made that statement, and now you're backpedaling with points to justify it after the fact. IMO you are like a fish out of water on this issue because you don't own a gun and have no clue what a real gun owner knows about weapons safety and keeping one secure. The bottom line is that she was not responsible, and the evidence is clear...

[ChaneRZ]

She did not have a safe. So irresponsible.

[carve]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

Honestly, I think if someone suggested re-instituting alcohol prohibition, that would get less of a rise out of people than, "lets talk about your guns".

Question: Do you know why a constitutional amendment was required to prohibit the production and sale of alcohol?

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by carve

Question: Do you know why a constitutional amendment was required to prohibit the production and sale of alcohol?

Hmmm... let's see... because back then, the Supreme Court could not leverage judicial fiat to change the meaning of the words in the constitution as easily as they can today? Please tell us your version, I'm sure it serves your agenda better than my version does.

What exactly does that have to do with my theory that it's easier to find some who will say "Pry this gun from my cold dead hand", than it is to find someone who will say "Pry this beer from my cold dead hand".

People toss "strawman argument" around quite liberally, and yet I'm being asked if I know what a flash suppressor is. WTF?

For the record, I do know, although I cannot claim to have personally used one myself. Totally unclear as to the relevance of that question. Lets say I didnt know what it was (which is what I'm sure you were hoping for). Would it somehow refute my suggestion that it's a disgraceful reflection on the gun laws that Ms. Lanza couldnt be charged with much of anything if she were still alive today?

These tangential obfuscations are really becoming quite bizarre. Richard Dawkins engaging the Pope himself about the existence of God would yield more productive talking points.....

[Mr Tonka]

i think.... i know what Al is saying.

If most gun owners feel that she was irresponsible, why isn't the NRA offering up middle ground solutions rather than staunch defense.

I feel the answer to that is, NY didn't offer up any middle ground solution that makes sense, they just passed laws with no real thought or research into the real issues and solutions that could make a real world difference. When governments do that, it appears as if they have a completely different agenda being imposed.

It's almost as if there is a scripted plan to ban all firearms from the public. Like when there is enough support after a horrible incident like Sandy Hook, the hand book calls for action: institute step C-3.2 as outlined in your ban all guns book.

If there were a true desire to curb as much gun violence as possible we'd be talking about a whole other scenario. But i guess washington doesn't care about 18-24 black males shooting themselves with hand guns in inner cities. Because thats where the majority of gun violence comes from.

Incase someone missed it in a seperate post... it's taken 30 YEARS to amass the same number of fatalities from mass shootings as there are in only 1 year in the city of Chicago. And only .0005% of ALL those mass shootings throughout ALL 30 YEARS were perpetrated with a rifle, assault or otherwise. That means on average, over the last 30 years there have been roughly 8 people per year killed by a rifle, assault or otherwise. That's 8 out of the roughly 13,000 gun homicides per year.

The lack of logic in the legislation is what sets us off. Just like pork in other legislation, it seems that the politicians have their own agendas because they don't come to the table with logical solutions.

[MediaArtist]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

The lack of logic in the legislation is what sets us off. Just like pork in other legislation, it seems that the politicians have their own agendas because they don't come to the table with logical solutions.

The legislation is NY isn't meant so solve a problem, it's feel good law making to sooth liberal fears. That's irresponsible.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

i think.... i know what Al is saying.

If most gun owners feel that she was irresponsible, why isn't the NRA offering up middle ground solutions rather than staunch defense.

Yes, that's pretty close. I guess I'm not trying to sing a song to an entirely deaf audience...

The NRA types are happy to stand around, and verbally express their disgust and moral outrage at how irresponsible she was. But, when it comes time to make her legally responsible (so you can effect real change, rather than just standing around, shaking your finger and saying "shame on you"), then they back off REAL quick, because going there means touching the huge political hot potato of revisiting gun laws.

Yes, the 7-round-rule is silly, as I've already said. However, before that even came out, right after the Sandy Hook shooting, the NRA had AMPLE opportunity to have taken a position that would have endeared them to the MAJORITY of people who want to see some kind of change now.

They could have said, hey, mass confiscations are certainly off the table, but we'd be willing to engage in preliminary discussions to see if something could be changed to prevent or deter the next one. Maybe make it so the next Ms. Lanza knows she could be charged if she does survive, and maybe that will cause her to lock her stuff away. Maybe register her guns with the authorities, so that it's easier to identify and monitor households which contain both mentally unstable people and guns (just like insurance companies want to understandably monitor households with muscle cars and teenage boys) Not an unreasonable olive branch. Maybe if they did something like that, anti-gun crowd would say, OK, we have something to work with here, and the 7-round-rule would have never seen the light of day. They'd be too busy working on picking the real juicy fruit.

These mass shootings are very rare. However, parents of 6 year olds who saw what happened are understandably very upset and nervous. These people are not ALL driven by a subversive liberal agenda to strip you of all your guns. Before Newtown, many of them probably didnt think about it that much. For the NRA to respond as they did, with a "the answer is MORE guns in your kids school", reveals a clumsy social insensitivity that is beyond words. I dont have kids, and even I could anticipate the fear they must have had sending their kids to school the next day. Is it logically sound, statistically speaking? Nope. But, when it comes to possibly losing your own child, I can understand that emotion may cloud reason. That should come as no surprise.

For the gun owner, well I dont have a gun either, but I cannot possibly imagine that someone's attachment to their AR-15 being as strong as a parent's attachment to their 6-year old daughter, so the really have less "excuse" to respond as irrationally or emotionally.

[MisterSkiMask]

Originally Posted by MediaArtist

The legislation is NY isn't meant so solve a problem, it's feel good law making to sooth liberal fears. That's irresponsible.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

Yes, that's pretty close. I guess I'm not trying to sing a song to an entirely deaf audience...

The NRA types are happy to stand around, and verbally express their disgust and moral outrage at how irresponsible she was. But, when it comes time to make her legally responsible (so you can effect real change, rather than just standing around, shaking your finger and saying "shame on you"), then they back off REAL quick, because going there means touching the huge political hot potato of revisiting gun laws.

Yes, the 7-round-rule is silly, as I've already said. However, before that even came out, right after the Sandy Hook shooting, the NRA had AMPLE opportunity to have taken a position that would have endeared them to the MAJORITY of people who want to see some kind of change now.

They could have said, hey, mass confiscations are certainly off the table, but we'd be willing to engage in preliminary discussions to see if something could be changed to prevent or deter the next one. Maybe make it so the next Ms. Lanza knows she could be charged if she does survive, and maybe that will cause her to lock her stuff away. Maybe register her guns with the authorities, so that it's easier to identify and monitor households which contain both mentally unstable people and guns (just like insurance companies want to understandably monitor households with muscle cars and teenage boys) Not an unreasonable olive branch. Maybe if they did something like that, anti-gun crowd would say, OK, we have something to work with here, and the 7-round-rule would have never seen the light of day. They'd be too busy working on picking the real juicy fruit.

These mass shootings are very rare. However, parents of 6 year olds who saw what happened are understandably very upset and nervous. These people are not ALL driven by a subversive liberal agenda to strip you of all your guns. Before Newtown, many of them probably didnt think about it that much. For the NRA to respond as they did, with a "the answer is MORE guns in your kids school", reveals a clumsy social insensitivity that is beyond words. I dont have kids, and even I could anticipate the fear they must have had sending their kids to school the next day. Is it logically sound, statistically speaking? Nope. But, when it comes to possibly losing your own child, I can understand that emotion may cloud reason. That should come as no surprise.

For the gun owner, well I dont have a gun either, but I cannot possibly imagine that someone's attachment to their AR-15 being as strong as a parent's attachment to their 6-year old daughter, so the really have less "excuse" to respond as irrationally or emotionally.

Yes, like the republican party, the NRA could benefit from a good PR department. They did have a chance to be the hero, providing positive solutions to guard against such tragedies in the future. It was probably a golden opportunity to gain support and respect. They could have gotten a lot of mileage out of bringing something to the table first.

It seems clear that there will be some type of legislation coming down the pipe, so why not get in there first and be part of the solution. Even with guarding the 2nd amendment fiercely being their agenda, they could have more easily done that being in on the new talks. Keep your enemies close....