• 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 28 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
eskimospy said:
It is a case that deals with a constitutional right. The burden is always on the government to show its necessity. This is not unique to this law.

Oh and maps like that are super misleading. Republicans usually publish one after every election they lose. People vote, not trees and grass.
Click to expand...

Then let NYC have the law. What's not super misleading is the underhanded way it was done. Little debate and no public input on the bill. We were intentionally cut out. Legal? Not the point. Scoundrels have been getting around that since forever.
 
Doppel said:
I believe this has killed his chances for presidency, almost alone. His approval rating is still strong but down to 55 I think now, shedding 20 points since this. He's learning that gun owners are a very strong voice and they will throw a lot of money at him if he ever tries it. I think this has finished such aspirations frankly.
Click to expand...

I'm contributing substantially to anyone who opposes him for any office.
 
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/21/speed-legislating/

quickly pushing through the toughest gun control laws in the country, we congratulated him on our editorial page, but worried about the speed and secrecy with which he accomplished this feat.

Wednesday night, we got a good example of the dangers of that method. The original bill banned the sale of magazines that hold more than seven rounds of ammunition. The problem, as Mr. Cuomo discovered rather belatedly, is that virtually nobody manufactures seven-round magazines.
Click to expand...

And don't forget that as the law stands there is no exemption for law enforcement. Talk about a rush job.

But clearly haste made waste — or, more specifically, fodder for anyone who thinks gun-control supporters are clueless.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
PC Surgeon said:
Shove it through like the patriot act eh? You would think people would be wary of this sort of tactic....
Click to expand...

There was nothing we could do. Cuomo wanted it and the political machine backed him. Comments have been made about NYC, but in truth they weren't allowed to participate either.

If a minority of them had disagreed with the Emperor then it would have been passed at the legislators peril. Political power prevailed as effectively as if we were a dictatorship.
 
So, further to the idea that NY is backing out of the 7 round magazine idea:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/21/n...ewly-passed-gun-restriction.html?ref=nyregion

“There is no such thing as a seven-bullet magazine,” Mr. Cuomo said at a news conference. “That doesn’t exist. So you really have no practical option.”
Click to expand...

Really, what a stupid fuck. If he had spent any time on this matter before forcing the bill through he would have known this. He pushed through a very controversial bill that forced people to buy magazines that don't exist, thus effectively outlawing a huge swathe of firearms (undeniably unconstitutional) and spoke further of confiscation back in January of this year.

All of this will come back to bite him hard if he ever ran for POTUS.
 
“There is no such thing as a seven-bullet magazine,” Mr. Cuomo said at a news conference. “That doesn’t exist. So you really have no practical option.”
Click to expand...

Well no shit theres never been a seven bullet magazine. Theres also never been a single bullet, 10 bullet, 15 bullet, or 30 bullet magazine either. A bullet is simply the projectile. A round is complete ammo. At least learn wtf you are talking about instead of just proving you have no freakin clue what you are talking about Mr. Cuomo.

All of this will come back to bite him hard if he ever ran for POTUS.
Click to expand...

This whole SAFE act and large soda ban BS has cost him any hope. NY might support him (or not) but the rest of country sure as well wont.
 
where were you people when bush took away all your rights when 9/11 happened? Now they want to take away some of your guns and you go ape shit crazy??????

Man.... Amazing. I say who gives a flying fuck about your guns.

I guess I find it funny that now your CARE... too late... you should have cared a long time ago when they started doing the wire tappings and random strip searches...

Sad man... Of course you can complain about it all day long they will ram this through easy because you didn't complain in the past and well now it's easy to do what's good for ya!

So, how ya liking it so far? How's that 2 party system working out for ya? Oh yeah, voting 3'rd party is wasting your vote... 🙂
 
ericlp said:
where were you people when bush took away all your rights when 9/11 happened? Now they want to take away some of your guns and you go ape shit crazy??????

Man.... Amazing. I say who gives a flying fuck about your guns.

I guess I find it funny that now your CARE... too late... you should have cared a long time ago when they started doing the wire tappings and random strip searches...

Sad man... Of course you can complain about it all day long they will ram this through easy because you didn't complain in the past and well now it's easy to do what's good for ya!

So, how ya liking it so far? How's that 2 party system working out for ya? Oh yeah, voting 3'rd party is wasting your vote... 🙂
Click to expand...
Amazing, you actually know every person in his thread's stance on all issues and appear to remember that not a single one has had any issues with Bush's assault on liberties as well. Great job!

Actually, maybe you can go troll another thread.
 
ericlp said:
where were you people when bush took away all your rights when 9/11 happened? Now they want to take away some of your guns and you go ape shit crazy??????

Man.... Amazing. I say who gives a flying fuck about your guns.

I guess I find it funny that now your CARE... too late... you should have cared a long time ago when they started doing the wire tappings and random strip searches...

Sad man... Of course you can complain about it all day long they will ram this through easy because you didn't complain in the past and well now it's easy to do what's good for ya!

So, how ya liking it so far? How's that 2 party system working out for ya? Oh yeah, voting 3'rd party is wasting your vote... 🙂
Click to expand...

Guess what. I was against it and the war and spoke against it before you had a clue. The Patriot Act was at least passed in the normal way. This was not. Where's you outrage in these forums about the war not being investigated? Oh, the Democrats are in power. Don't make too much noise. In your complaining about Bush where's Obama? What about his expansion of invasiveness? Many of us are against these things. Maybe not all, but you aren't in a position to throw stones but that won't stop you.
 
Doppel said:
This rushing gunman stuff is fantasy. I saw a link to a is yesterday abou teaching a female teacher to disarm an armed male. It's total f**king nonsense. When a gunman is on the loose if you aren't armed the smartest thing to do is run and hide, period.

I'm interested does anybody have links on how many shots are fired in average in a self defense situation? I really think NY's law breaches the 2nd A most directly by compromising the ability to self-defend. This lack of defense, comparatively, is also why precisely police will not have to be shbjected to this new law.
Click to expand...

You'd lose that argument fairly strongly as the 2nd amendment has well, nothing, to do with self-defense.

"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."

The 2nd amendment refers to the freedom to own firearms and for states to have official militias as a protection against overreach from the federal government. You might have more success applying your argument with the 10th amendment.

In my opinion it's worth remembering that the 2nd amendment was written in a time when reloading a firearm took highly skilled individuals about 40 seconds and allowed the firing of one round. It troubles me greatly that people ignore the advances in technology that have occurred when citing a 220+ year old law. It was written in a different time, for a different purpose than is often cited, in a different world. It doesn't mean that I think it's irrelevant today but I do wish we could remember the context from which it originated.

I strongly dislike the NYS law myself for reasons that haven't been discussed here at all. That said, I feel this is a fairly strong example of states rights. If people in NY have a problem with it, they can vote in a new legislature to repeal it or place it up for referendum.
 
Last edited:
Hey Carmen! Good to see you.

Points of disagreement -

First, your interpretation of the second is your opinion, not one that has been ruled to be true. Second, documents concurrent with the Constitution show the consensus was that the right to individual ownership was not to be revoked. Last and most important is your last comment. How are we supposed to have input and revoke this when Albany and Cuomo set about to purposefully circumvent public input and limit debate to a ridiculously short period of time. The clear intent is to use technical devices to sabotage legitimate governance, using rules to subvert the process for their desires. When one can bet on the same tactics to block what anyone wants but themselves. We're rendered irrelevant and indeed the citizen is effectively viewed as an obstacle to the wishes of our would be Emperor. This is an act of enormity, not responsibile leadership and goes far beyond guns to the real thoughts and attitudes of those in power in Albany.
 
Carmen813 said:
You'd lose that argument fairly strongly as the 2nd amendment has well, nothing, to do with self-defense.

"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."

The 2nd amendment refers to the freedom to own firearms and for states to have official militias as a protection against overreach from the federal government. You might have more success applying your argument with the 10th amendment.

In my opinion it's worth remembering that the 2nd amendment was written in a time when reloading a firearm took highly skilled individuals about 40 seconds and allowed the firing of one round. It troubles me greatly that people ignore the advances in technology that have occurred when citing a 220+ year old law. It was written in a different time, for a different purpose than is often cited, in a different world. It doesn't mean that I think it's irrelevant today but I do wish we could remember the context from which it originated.

I strongly dislike the NYS law myself for reasons that haven't been discussed here at all. That said, I feel this is a fairly strong example of states rights. If people in NY have a problem with it, they can vote in a new legislature to repeal it or place it up for referendum.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. There were a number of multiple barreled pistols and multiple shot rifles and other firearms that were very well known to the founders. Even the Girandoni airgun that was on the Lewis and Clark expedition used a 22 round magazine and allowed over 44 full powered shots ( about equal in power to a .45 acp round) before it need to be re-pumped and was issued in the 1780's in Europe.
 
Carmen813 said:
You'd lose that argument fairly strongly as the 2nd amendment has well, nothing, to do with self-defense.
Click to expand...
Unequivocally incorrect. Lose the argument? It's already been won in the Supreme Court. You're obviously late to the debate here. Go see what SCOTUS said in Heller 2008 ruling. Self-defense is written all over the ruling. Militia is one part of the 2nd and the Supreme Court has held that the 2nd protects right to self-defense. This is settled already with the only court that really matters.

The arguments you're making are more or less no longer relevant as the Supreme Court already considered them five years ago. A commonly-used firearm for personal self-defense is a constitutional absolute, now affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Lastly, states rights cannot contradict the constitution in this matter. Again, don't take my word for it, the Supreme Court already ruled on that as well in Mcdonald 2010.

Every one of your arguments has already been specifically addressed and rebuked by the Supreme Court.
 
Last edited:
Not to mention the right to defend ones self is an inalienable right. No law can take this away as its your right to life that supersedes the will/census of other men. How you choose to do that is dependent upon what is available and clearly the founders thought guns to be part of it.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
Hey Carmen! Good to see you.

Points of disagreement -

First, your interpretation of the second is your opinion, not one that has been ruled to be true. Second, documents concurrent with the Constitution show the consensus was that the right to individual ownership was not to be revoked. Last and most important is your last comment. How are we supposed to have input and revoke this when Albany and Cuomo set about to purposefully circumvent public input and limit debate to a ridiculously short period of time. The clear intent is to use technical devices to sabotage legitimate governance, using rules to subvert the process for their desires. When one can bet on the same tactics to block what anyone wants but themselves. We're rendered irrelevant and indeed the citizen is effectively viewed as an obstacle to the wishes of our would be Emperor. This is an act of enormity, not responsibile leadership and goes far beyond guns to the real thoughts and attitudes of those in power in Albany.
Click to expand...

I think from the get go it's very important to state that I do not support this gun control legislation, or most forms of it. I do not support an assault weapons ban at this time. I do not believe that guns are the reasons we have violence in our society - they are simply the chosen form of weaponry that many individuals elect to use to commit extreme violence. I would support voluntary gun buyback programs that do not punish those who own them illegally, if for no reason than to remove some of these weapons from the street, but that's about it.

I'd be more interested in seeing local, state, and national policies that seek to address the underlying causes of violence in our society. I don't know many people who grow up wanting to be mass murderers, and I think all too often we simply label these people as "mentally ill" without seeking to understand the social or cultural factors in our society that contribute to mental illness.

To me, the whole debate about gun control is a red herring designed to distract people of both political persuasions from the real root causes of violence in our society - which I believe to be some of our social and cultural foundations.

The two 5-4 Supreme decisions that stated we have a right to self-defense used some fairly confabulated logic to get there. I'm not saying I disagree with a right to self-defense, I'm simply stating my opinion that such a right was already covered by the 10th amendment. Efforts to have the second amendment cover that right were "judicial activism."

Hey Hayabusa,
Good to hear from you too, I still lurk here from time to time. Don't generally participate anymore as, while I remain very interested in politics, I don't really enjoy this medium as a way to debate anymore. For career reasons I try to limit my interactions on social media nowadays. As for Albany, all I could suggest is to get out there when statewide elections come out and bring this issue back to bear. For all the power elected officials have while they are in office, they still have to run for re-election.
 
Last edited:
PC Surgeon said:
Not to mention the right to defend ones self is an inalienable right. No law can take this away as its your right to life that supersedes the will/census of other men. How you choose to do that is dependent upon what is available and clearly the founders thought guns to be part of it.
Click to expand...

Quick thought, and more as a devil's advocate statement, but what would you say to those who believe that gun control is how to defend their "right to life"?

It seems to me that this issue is oversimplified to two sides: owning guns makes us safer vs. proliferation of guns makes us less safe...when in reality there is probably truth to both sides.
 
Carmen813 said:
Quick thought, and more as a devil's advocate statement, but what would you say to those who believe that gun control is how to defend their "right to life"?
Click to expand...

They are depending on someone with a gun. Either themselves or law enforcement so the point is moot.

It seems to me that this issue is oversimplified to two sides: owning guns makes us safer vs. proliferation of guns makes us less safe...when in reality there is probably truth to both sides.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. The problem is not the guns themselves as many seem to think. Its the individual who carries it that is the real issue. Don't let that stop the argument though as it hasn't up until now. More restrictions do not equal less senseless killings. To ignore the real issue only allows more restrictions on your right to defend yourself and thats it.
 
I stumbled upon the first significant ruling as far as this NY law is concerned. In short, most of it is upheld now by a federal judge with the main thing thrown the arbitrary rule on 7 round magazines, which everybody knew was stupid and the judge said as much without use of that word.

The state is claiming it will appeal this round rule (I am highly confident they'll lose; it's really just fucking idiotic and I've never seen any argument for it that makes any sense at all), and pro-gunners appealing the judge's ruling.

It seems to me that, once the smoke clears, the bulk of the NY law will stand. That means more or less that assault weapons are going to be a dying species in NY.

Who knows what will remain if/when this law goes to SCOTUS (if it ever does--if another court upholds, then this path is dead in the water).

My grand, long-term prediction is that if a gun law hits SCOTUS within the next few years SCOTUS will not say that a 30-round semi-auto rifle is protected by the 2nd amendment. I just don't see SCOTUS going beyond self-defense into a "militia/military weapon allowed" type ruling, and as far as self-defense is concerned semi-auto rifles are just low on the ladder; people defend their persons with handguns outside of the home and shotguns in the home (generally).
 
Last edited:
Doppel said:
I stumbled upon the first significant ruling as far as this NY law is concerned. In short, most of it is upheld now by a federal judge with the main thing thrown the arbitrary rule on 7 round magazines, which everybody knew was stupid and the judge said as much without use of that word.

The state is claiming it will appeal this round rule (I am highly confident they'll lose; it's really just fucking idiotic and I've never seen any argument for it that makes any sense at all), and pro-gunners appealing the judge's ruling.

It seems to me that, once the smoke clears, the bulk of the NY law will stand. That means more or less that assault weapons are going to be a dying species in NY.

Who knows what will remain if/when this law goes to SCOTUS (if it ever does--if another court upholds, then this path is dead in the water).

My grand, long-term prediction is that if a gun law hits SCOTUS within the next few years SCOTUS will not say that a 30-round semi-auto rifle is protected by the 2nd amendment. I just don't see SCOTUS going beyond self-defense into a "militia/military weapon allowed" type ruling, and as far as self-defense is concerned semi-auto rifles are just low on the ladder; people defend their persons with handguns outside of the home and shotguns in the home (generally).
Click to expand...

If the Supreme Court takes the case, I hope the plaintiff hires better attorneys. The defense submitted a significant amount of anti-gun propaganda from lying hacks like the Brady Campaign, and the judge didn't question most of it because the plaintiff submitted no contrary evidence.

The plaintiff also correctly argued that collapsible stocks, flash hiders, bayonets, and pistol grips (i.e. the defining characteristics of an "assault weapon") do not increase a firearm's lethality, but then simultaneously claimed that these features are necessary for effective self defense. The judge noted the contradiction and sided with the state.

I liked the limit of only loading 7 rounds in a 10 round magazine. It was the perfect demonstration of gun control's root purpose of making legal firearm ownership difficult, confusing, and dangerous.
 
Doppel said:
My grand, long-term prediction is that if a gun law hits SCOTUS within the next few years SCOTUS will not say that a 30-round semi-auto rifle is protected by the 2nd amendment. I just don't see SCOTUS going beyond self-defense into a "militia/military weapon allowed" type ruling, and as far as self-defense is concerned semi-auto rifles are just low on the ladder; people defend their persons with handguns outside of the home and shotguns in the home (generally).
Click to expand...

Of the enumerated powers the federal govt is granted, not one of them is regulating firearms. The bill of rights was a mistake as many at the time thought, as enumerating rights is somewhat saying govt grants rights, and that is not the case. The constitution limits govt by saying what the federal govt CAN do, not what it specifically can't, which is why the bill of rights is a mistake, redundant and has allowed for this sabotage over the years. But the 9th amendment clarifies the original intent.

But are states allowed to regulate a right?

The 14th through the due process clause fully incorporates the bill of rights against the states, including the 2nd. Please read http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1521.ZC1.html for a better explanation than I can give.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top