• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

NY State *passes* most restrictive weapons ban ever after being rushed to a vote.

Page 17 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Hayabusa Rider said:
You haven't been keeping up. Many regular .22s are banned. A whole lot more are effectively as well.

Now that has nothing to do with what I said and that is the NY government without due consideration and public input on a serious issue constructed a political stunt so badly that as it stands even law enforcement is held to the same standards. Any police or government organization at this moment can be in violation at this time. Sure they'll fix that, but seriously? They didn't take time to consider the basics. I have a similar proposal. Let's have a 5 minute limit on medical procedures for our politicians. It will save uncounted dollars and make sure valuable resources aren't tied up. What harm could that do?

There are going to be whole lot of "illegal" guns in NY now, and there should be. This isn't democracy, it's a farce. Cuomo wanted what Cuomo wanted. He believes something and that settles it. He's the Almighty in his eyes, and has enough political clout to play the part. Our opinions are unwelcome.
Click to expand...

Are those 22s banned because it's impossible to find a mag of correct size? I understand that any gun that takes more than 7 rounds but these are NOT via detachable means is NOT banned. This is from one of the lawmakers leadin the charge on the legislation.

I think this law will make a lot of new repubs in NY though curious how it got through the senate so easily if it is republican lead. In the assembly it seemed only R's were opposed.
 
Doppel said:
Are those 22s banned because it's impossible to find a mag of correct size? I understand that any gun that takes more than 7 rounds but these are NOT via detachable means is NOT banned. This is from one of the lawmakers leadin the charge on the legislation.

I think this law will make a lot of new repubs in NY though curious how it got through the senate so easily if it is republican lead. In the assembly it seemed only R's were opposed.
Click to expand...

A republican in NY is a Democrat in most other states. Whether R or D our assembly has a history of completely ignoring the people in terms of political power, egregiously so. Cuomo is merely a bigger predator than they are so they submit and keep their little slice of the pond.

The other thing is that NY state is run by NYC and that's run by "you can't have a large popcorn" Bloomberg types. We submit because we have no voice. It's a perfect machine which exists to fuel it's own considerations. There was no "emergency" as Cuomo uses to justify his actions, it was merely opportunism to get what he wanted to make himself look good in his eyes and will try to use it to leverage himself to the WH. We're chips in his poker game of power.

He's the Dick Cheney and Richard Nixon of Democrats.
 
What I wonder is why the Democrats in NY even waited for an event like Sandy Hook to happen. It's a complete bald-faced opportunistic grab, but given the speed and votes that they had to pass this, why even wait? Why not just exert their fascistic will any old time? I think many NY Democrats are going to pick up on this and really start going for the gold from now on. No need to wait for a crisis when you can just cram your liberal ideals down everyones' throats at your leisure.
 
Doppel said:
Are those 22s banned because it's impossible to find a mag of correct size? I understand that any gun that takes more than 7 rounds but these are NOT via detachable means is NOT banned. This is from one of the lawmakers leadin the charge on the legislation.

I think this law will make a lot of new repubs in NY though curious how it got through the senate so easily if it is republican lead. In the assembly it seemed only R's were opposed.
Click to expand...

That's the problem. These guns have to be 18 years old to begin with to have been grandfathered in the 1994 ban. If we are lucky someone might decide to make magazines for them. Until then they are useless.
 
eskimospy said:
Of course it is, unless you can point out what part violates the constitution. If you want to do so please cite the specific part and why court ruling you are basing your opinion on.
Click to expand...

It's a Cuomo and Assembly issue. Our input as citizens is unwanted. But perhaps carefully guided lives by the enlightened is something seen as desirable.
 
eskimospy said:
Of course it is, unless you can point out what part violates the constitution. If you want to do so please cite the specific part and why court ruling you are basing your opinion on.
Click to expand...

Cant believe you guys would violate the Constitution to push the political agenda. Read the Constitution
 
Genx87 said:
Well maybe this law will provide such a ruling. It is pretty draconian in nature.
Click to expand...

I guarantee you that this law will not produce a ruling of an unlimited right to bear arms.

I will take any and all bets for those who think it will, at 10-1 odds. Minimum bet $100.
 
eskimospy said:
And now just provide me with a court ruling that states it as an absolute?

Oh yeah, you can't. So sorry.
Click to expand...

You don't need a court ruling to state what is clearly written in the Constitution.

*EDIT* I realize I can't have a rocket launcher in my front yard but this is very draconian to tell me a gun that has been legal to own and who NY had no problem taking my permit money to register is now illegal.
 
Last edited:
eskimospy said:
I guarantee you that this law will not produce a ruling of an unlimited right to bear arms.

I will take any and all bets for those who think it will, at 10-1 odds. Minimum bet $100.
Click to expand...

I dont think there will be a ruling of unlimited right to bear arms. However this law is frickin draconian.
 
I don't think the executive branch would be the one that disappointed our founding fathers the most, I think it would be the Supreme Court. They have caved in to social pressures far too often and their interpretations of the constitution reflect that.
 
eskimospy said:
You realize that is basically the definition of representative democracy, right?
Click to expand...

No it's not. The idea of representative democracy is that the will of the people be implemented by others who are selected by them. It may be imperfect and sometimes it's wrong, but if you think the purpose of any form of democracy is to effectively vote in our masters with no voice except in some Novembers, you are really off the rails. They are to be answerable to us, and not just on the second Tuesday.

If you want lords and masters there are other forms of government, and no, having an effective menu of two choices for a beneficent authoritarian government isn't one I find appealing. YMMV
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
No it's not. The idea of representative democracy is that the will of the people be implemented by others who are selected by them. It may be imperfect and sometimes it's wrong, but if you think the purpose of any form of democracy is to effectively vote in our masters with no voice except in some Novembers, you are really off the rails. They are to be answerable to us, and not just on the second Tuesday.

If you want lords and masters there are other forms of government, and no, having an effective menu of two choices for a beneficent authoritarian government isn't one I find appealing. YMMV
Click to expand...

No actually, our system of government is set up explicitly so that is when they are answerable. Some states have recall provisions bit outside of that...no. That's just not the way our system works. If anything it seems that you want a different system of government.
 
momeNt said:
I don't think the executive branch would be the one that disappointed our founding fathers the most, I think it would be the Supreme Court. They have caved in to social pressures far too often and their interpretations of the constitution reflect that.
Click to expand...

No, definitely the legislature. (depending on the FF of course). They intended the legislature to be the first among equals and it has pissed its power away.
 
eskimospy said:
No actually, our system of government is set up explicitly so that is when they are answerable. Some states have recall provisions bit outside of that...no. That's just not the way our system works. If anything it seems that you want a different system of government.
Click to expand...

Ahh I understand. We are to be ruled. Those elected have no moral obligation whatsoever to the electorate, but they may be removed at the poll.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
Ahh I understand. We are to be ruled. Those elected have no moral obligation whatsoever to the electorate, but they may be removed at the poll.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry if you don't like how the Constitution sets up our government. Maybe you should work to change it. You appear to think that the constitution as written is tyrannical.

I'm sorry?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top