Feinstein going for another gun ban

[fossten]

Oh stop being a smart @ss.
This is what the public knows these guns as.
They are detuned automatic military assault guns with 10 to 30 round magazines that need 1 pull of the trigger per bullet but can be legally and illegally modified for full automatic firing.

semi automatic military assault rifle is an oxymoron.

You are the one being misleading here trying to remove "assault" out of the common term by hiding behind narrow legal definitions and changing the language with your assertion.

What does 'detuned' mean? Is a gun a musical instrument now?

You are ABSOLUTELY IGNORANT.

It is the LEFT who changed the definition, not us. It's the left who ADDED the term 'assault' to semiautomatic rifles in an attempt to include them in the 1994 ban. Prior to 1989, the term "assault weapon" did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term, developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of "assault rifles" which, by the way, were banned in 1986. So-called assault weapons are not machine guns or assault rifles. According to David Kopel, writing in The Wall Street Journal:

What some people call "assault weapons" function like every other normal firearm—they fire only one bullet each time the trigger is pressed. Unlike automatics (machine guns), they do not fire continuously as long as the trigger is held. They are "semi-automatic" because they eject the empty shell case and load the next round into the firing chamber. Today in America, most handguns are semi-automatics, as are many long guns, including the best-selling rifle today, the AR-15... Some of these guns look like machine guns, but they do not function like machine guns.

A semiautomatic rifle is NOT an assault rifle.

The only difference between an AR 15 and a ranch rifle is the COSMETIC STUFF attached to it.

There is LITERALLY NO DIFFERENCE in lethality between the two.

Stop being an idiot and learn something.

If not assault gun then how would you define this detuned military assault weapon beyond calling it a rifle?
Sport Gun? High Performance Gun? Muscle Gun?

How about 'Modern Musket?' Or 'Battle Rifle?' Or 'Evil Black Rifle?' Or, more to your taste, 'Scary Boomstick Make Loud Bang?'

And why does the Second Amendment prohibit fully automatic fire anyways if AR-15s are otherwise constitutional?
Why not go all the way with your Man Card?

Look who's being a smartass now. Hypocrite.

 

[fossten]

I have to say, that I find all of this conversation rather amusing. I guess bringing a single citizen up on charges for providing a single rifle and shotgun, is ok. Even tho the federal government sent over 2,000 rifles and shotguns and handguns into mexico to arm the Drug Cartels. Thereby resulting in the deaths of over 400 mexican citizens, and countless american citizens. Also, over 1600 of said weapons are still unaccounted for. But I guess since they were not American children, its ok.
Wide Receiver, Hernandez case, Fast and Furious. All acts of Treason. Providing support and aid to the Drug Cartels a certified enemy of the United States and its people. Of course, nobody is in an uproar over it. Nobody is calling for the banning and disarming of the American Government. If civilians don't need them, then certainly the civilian government doesn't need them. I think the Hypocrisy is just incredible.

Quite right.

 

[V-Tally]

'Scary Boomstick Make Loud Bang?' is the greatest thing I have ever heard a gun called.

 

[JoshMcMadMac]

This is what the public knows these guns as.
They are detuned automatic military assault guns with 10 to 30 round magazines that need 1 pull of the trigger per bullet but can be legally and illegally modified for full automatic firing.

Do you have any familiarity with which you speak? Research what it takes to "modify" an AR-15 for select fire and reassess your comment, please. :shifty:

 

[Upstairs Chris]

That still is a preposterous example. In all my years in the military not a single person has advocated using a 5.56 M16 or M4 on anything but semi auto. That is they way were are trained, and that is how it is fielded.

Soldiers and Marines take their M4's and M16's into Afghanistan everyday and shoot at and kill people with it on semi auto. So then you have to ask yourself. What is the real difference between this "civilian" AR-15, and "military" M4?

I have two professions, both deal with weapons extensively. I carry one everyday, and sometimes have to deal with people who also have them. I encountered a home owner last week who felt the need to answer the door with his AR-15.

There would have been no more danger if he held and M4, or that AR-15. It doesn't really make sense that one is illegal and the other is not.




If you are going to be an asshat, please don't bother debating my point. I was active in this thread until people started posting long winded posts that were more concerned with bashing the other point of view rather than actual debate.

 

[04SCTLS]

Do you have any familiarity with which you speak? Research what it takes to "modify" an AR-15 for select fire and reassess your comment, please. :shifty:

This Simple, Legal Add-On Lets an AR-15 Rifle Fire 900 Rounds Per Minute

[URL="http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/01/07/slide_fire_this_simple_legal_add_on_lets_an_ar_15_fire_900_rounds_per_minute.html"][URL="http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/01/07/slide_fire_this_simple_legal_add_on_lets_an_ar_15_fire_900_rounds_per_minute.html"][url]http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/01/07/slide_fire_this_simple_legal_add_on_lets_an_ar_15_fire_900_rounds_per_minute.html[/URL][/URL][/URL]

Hey, it’s Monday, and I’m back with more on the AR-15, the hugely popular semi-automatic rifle that has been in the news ever since it was used by Adam Lanza in December to kill 26 people at Sandy Hook School. (Note: I have received several unconvincing emails claiming that Lanza did not, in fact, use the AR-15. Show me your evidence if you’ve got it, guys, because every single reputable source I’ve seen—including the Connecticut State Police—says that Lanza used an AR-15-style rifle in the attacks, brought two pistols into the school, and had a shotgun in the trunk of his car. Grainy YouTube videos do not count as “evidence.”)
Why are AR-15-style rifles so popular? As Cracked.com put it, “the AR-15 is kind of the gun-dweeb's version of Linux: All kinds of modifications can be made to it.” It’s relatively simple for an enthusiastic marksman to customize the rifle to his specifications—adding a scope and other optics, swapping in a new grip, or trigger, or barrel. These modifications are more or less benign. But there’s another change that’s more problematic: For a few hundred dollars, you can convert the semi-automatic AR-15 into a rifle that can simulate automatic fire. And it’s perfectly legal.

To understand how this works, you first need to know about a process called “bump firing.” When you bump fire a semi-automatic rifle, your non-shooting hand pulls the rifle forward until the trigger hits your rigid trigger finger, thus firing the rifle. Then, recoil sends the rifle bouncing back and forth against your rigid trigger finger, causing it to keep shooting at an accelerated rate, simulating automatic fire.

Slide Fire Solutions SSAR-15.mpg - YouTube

You generally bump fire from your hip, and you can’t really aim the rifle, which makes the technique kind of frivolous. If your fingers don’t work and you can’t squeeze a trigger, bump firing is a godsend. Otherwise, bump firing is only useful if you want to waste a lot of ammo fast.

At least that was the case until a couple of years ago. That’s when a company called Slide Fire Solutions introduced a replacement rifle stock called the SSAR-15 that, for $369, allows you to bump fire your AR-15-style rifle from your shoulder while still retaining accuracy and control. The stock, in the simplest terms, is the part of the rifle you hold and brace against your shoulder. According to the Slide Fire website, “unlike traditional bump firing, the Slidestock allows the shooter to properly hold the firearm and maintain complete control at all times. As a result of the forward movement required to discharge each round, the shooter naturally corrects their point-of-aim for each shot and prevents recoil from pushing the firearm's muzzle upward in an unsafe direction.” Or, as the subhed more concisely puts it, the SSAR-15 lets a shooter “unleash 100 rounds, in 7 seconds.” A product review at a site called Guns America notes that the SSAR-15 “installs in one minute with no special skills.”

If you’re like me, you had two reactions after watching those videos: “Holy ****,” and “There’s no way that can be legal.” But it’s completely legal. Prominently linked on the Slide Fire website is a letter from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, confirming that the Slide Fire stock “has no automatically functioning mechanical parts or springs and performs no automatic mechanical function when installed,” and hence “is not regulated as a firearm under Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act.” As far as I can tell, it would’ve been legal under the now-expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban, too. To be covered by the AWB, an AR-15-style rifle with a detachable magazine also had to have at least two of the following five features: “(i) a folding or telescoping stock; (ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; (iii) a bayonet mount; (iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and (v) a grenade launcher.” The SSAR-15 isn’t any of those things.

In its letter to ATF, Slide Fire apparently argued that its product was intended to help people with bad hands. And, indeed, the jolly old woman at the end of the Slide Fire promotional video looks thrilled to have rediscovered the joy of firing a rifle really ****ing fast. But the Slide Fire website indicates that the SSAR-15 is being marketed to an able-bodied demographic. (The top of the site features a huge picture of a zombie, and the words “Prepare. They won’t kill themselves….”) It’s impossible to watch those videos and not think about using the SSAR-15 to mow down enemy hordes.

A lot of people have argued that gun-control advocates fixate on modern rifles like the AR-15 not because they’re inherently more dangerous than shotguns, revolvers, or bolt-action rifles, but because they look scary. There’s some truth to that argument. But it’s also true that’s a lot easier to modify a modern rifle into something that really is scary. You can’t send hundreds of rounds per minute down range with a bolt-action rifle. Though my thoughts on gun control are evolving and subject to change, I’m still generally against it. But I also think that we need to have as much good information as possible about the guns in our midst, both about what they do and what they can be made to do.

________________________________________________________________________________________

Maybe you guys can go run out and get these now that I have brought them to your attention

 

[JoshMcMadMac]

This Simple, Legal Add-On Lets an AR-15 Rifle Fire 900 Rounds Per Minute...

Bump firing is not select-fire, and can be done without modification to the rifle.

 

[04SCTLS]

Bump firing is not select-fire, and can be done without modification to the rifle.

A rose by another name? would smell as sweet.
It is what it is as the video demonstrates.

 

[JoshMcMadMac]

A rose by another name? would smell as sweet.
It is what it is as the video demonstrates.

Please address my original question.

 

[04SCTLS]

Please address my original question.

Bump firing is not select-fire, and can be done without modification to the rifle.

You didn't ask a question but made a statement.
Are you going to split hairs as to what is automatic gunfire
and tell me not to believe my eyes.
What was your question again?

 

[shagdrum]

Oh stop being a smart @ss.
This is what the public knows these guns as.

Not being a smart ass. The term "assault weapon" is itself, a term to play off of public ignorance to confuse and frustrate any honest discourse.

Assault weapons...are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons - anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun - can only increase the chance for public support for restrictions on these weapons.
-Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center in 1988

Prior to 1989, the term "assault weapon" did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of "assault rifles"...
-Bruce H. Kobayashi & Joseph E. Olson in the Standford Law and Policy Review​

For any informed, intelligent discussion to take place, that ignorance has to be nullified so such dishonest manipulation/well poisoning is not possible.

Defining the terms of the debate generally dictates who's gonna' win it.
-Paul Begala

Abuse of words has been the great instrument of sophistry and chicanery, of party, faction, and division of society.
-John Adams

Political language — and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists — is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.
-George Orwell, Politics and the English Language​

The more you use such dishonest terminology (and misuse other terminology), the more you discredit yourself. It would be wise to understand such distinctions and adjust your arguments accordingly.

You are the one being misleading here trying to remove "assault" out of the common term by hiding behind narrow legal definitions and changing the language with your assertion.

Not really. The very word "assault" is misused in phrases like "assault weapon", which is why it is misleading.

"Assault" describes an action, not an item. Any other use is purely political.

If not assault gun then how would you define this detuned military assault weapon beyond calling it a rifle?

Semi-automatic rifle. Define it by how it functions.

The only people demanding new artificial categories are those that A) don't understand how those weapons function, and/or B) perfer to mislead and demonize through categorical distinctions which identify malicious intent with the weapon in the categorical term.

The burden of proof is on you (and those who share your perspective) to demonstrate why there must be a new category of weapon for certain semi-automatic weapons. Facilitating manipulation of public ignorance is not a legitimate justification.

And why does the Second Amendment prohibit fully automatic fire anyways if AR-15s are otherwise constitutional?

The second amendment doesn't make any such prohibition.

 

[shagdrum]

FYI, bumpfire is not unique to the AR-15. You can do it with the SKS, a weapons which, to my knowledge was never designed in a full auto configuration. Nor is it even something unique to rifles. Go on youtube and type in bumpfire. You will find plenty of people utilizing that technique with pistols.

The bumpfire thing hardly justifies singling out the AR and AK's as some separate, more deadly type of firearm.

 

[04SCTLS]

Not being a smart ass. The term "assault weapon" is itself, a term to play off of public ignorance to confuse and frustrate any honest discourse.

Assault weapons...are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons - anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun - can only increase the chance for public support for restrictions on these weapons.
-Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center in 1988

Prior to 1989, the term "assault weapon" did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of "assault rifles"...
-Bruce H. Kobayashi & Joseph E. Olson in the Standford Law and Policy Review​

For any informed, intelligent discussion to take place, that ignorance has to be nullified so such dishonest manipulation/well poisoning is not possible.

Defining the terms of the debate generally dictates who's gonna' win it.
-Paul Begala

Abuse of words has been the great instrument of sophistry and chicanery, of party, faction, and division of society.
-John Adams

Political language — and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists — is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.
-George Orwell, Politics and the English Language​

The more you use such dishonest terminology (and misuse other terminology), the more you discredit yourself. It would be wise to understand such distinctions and adjust your arguments accordingly.


Not really. The very word "assault" is misused in phrases like "assault weapon", which is why it is misleading.

"Assault" describes an action, not an item. Any other use is purely political.



Semi-automatic rifle. Define it by how it functions.

The only people demanding new artificial categories are those that A) don't understand how those weapons function, and/or B) perfer to mislead and demonize through categorical distinctions which identify malicious intent with the weapon in the categorical term.

The burden of proof is on you (and those who share your perspective) to demonstrate why there must be a new category of weapon for certain semi-automatic weapons. Facilitating manipulation of public ignorance is not a legitimate justification.



The second amendment doesn't make any such prohibition.

Don't get yourself into a lather with this semantic sideshow.
They are what they are.
The public calls there assault guns.
Nobody calls them defensive guns.
People won't know what you are talking about if you call them that.

 

[shagdrum]

Don't get yourself into a lather with this semantic sideshow.
They are what they are.
The public calls there assault guns.
Nobody calls them defensive guns.
People won't know what you are talking about if you call them that.

Don't mistake the pic for my argument. Read what I wrote.

The language has long been corrupted and you are implying we should cater to the lowest common denominator in society who are too stupid and/or dishonest to distinguish between honest language and political language. Arguments can be won in the long run by simply muddying the waters and dumbing down the conversation. If that is where we are in society, stock up on gold, duct tape and ammo and prepare for social collapse because we have already lost society.

But we both know your argument here is mere opportunism; you are hiding behind the LCD to avoid acknowledging those distinctions yourself.

Are you actually suggesting that language, terminology and integrity in rhetoric is not vital to honest, productive discourse?

That certainly seems like continued dodging.

 

[04SCTLS]

Don't mistake the pic for my argument. Read what I wrote.

The language has long been corrupted and you are implying we should cater to the lowest common denominator in society who are too stupid and/or dishonest to distinguish between honest language and political language. Arguments can be won in the long run by simply muddying the waters and dumbing down the conversation. If that is where we are in society, stock up on gold, duct tape and ammo and prepare for social collapse because we have already lost society.

But we both know your argument here is mere opportunism; you are hiding behind the LCD to avoid acknowledging those distinctions yourself.



Are you actually suggesting that language, terminology and integrity in rhetoric is not vital to honest, productive discourse?

That certainly seems like continued dodging.

Well you are entitled to your opinion (which you probably read somewhere) audacious and incredulous as I may find it.

Besides calling them a Man Card in their ads Bushmaster calls these type of guns Carbines and ARCs or Adaptive Combat Rifles.

http://www.bushmaster.com/firearms/acr.asp

Note the typical Combat Rifle shooters in the ad at the Bushmaster link, a bunch of 50-60 year old white guys at the range.

I don't think Assault Gun is misleading despite your posted sophistry.

How about Combat Rifles ?
That's an honest and productive description right from the manufacturer.

 

[fossten]

Well you are entitled to your opinion (which you probably read somewhere) audacious and incredulous as I may find it.

Oh puh-leeze.

You wouldn't even HAVE an opinion in this thread without having read or heard it somewhere.

You wouldn't know how to properly research the gun culture if you wanted to.

Your entire tone in this discussion is mocking and pejorative, yet you whine about others being smartasses.

Hypocrite.

 

[04SCTLS]

Oh puh-leeze.

You wouldn't even HAVE an opinion in this thread without having read or heard it somewhere.

You wouldn't know how to properly research the gun culture if you wanted to.

Your entire tone in this discussion is mocking and pejorative, yet you whine about others being smartasses.

Hypocrite.

Yes no man is an island in opinions but my smartassedness is more creative and superlative than Shag's
I'm a creative artistic person and IMO there's more of me and my own thinking (ridiculous and lacking to you as it may seem) in my opinions.
And it has got you back out onto the board after a 2 year hiatus to attack me which you enjoy , so life is good no
I don't think Combat Gun or Rifle though perhaps more accurate is much better than Assault Gun only sounding slightly less menacing.
These weapons are used offensively.
Defensive gun isn't going to go anywhere and it's futile to try and change the common term for this type of gun in the language.
What the public calls these guns is beside the point though despite being hopeless, I understand your desire to call them something else without the word assault in there.

 

[fossten]

Yes no man is an island in opinions but my smartassedness is more creative and superlative than Shag's

No, it really isn't. You're a legend only in your own mind. You don't even understand paragraphs.

I'm a creative artistic person and IMO there's more of me and my own thinking (ridiculous and lacking to you as it may seem) in my opinions.

Too bad your opinions don't possess any facts, though. Makes your entire worldview nothing but a fiction.

Also, it's notable that you failed to even address any of my potential solutions for the violence problem, upthread. You aren't really interested in solutions, only in poking conservatives and bemoaning the lack of a total police state.

And it has got you back out onto the board after a 2 year hiatus to attack me which you enjoy , so life is good no

Don't flatter yourself. I didn't come back here for you.

I don't think Combat Gun or Rifle though perhaps more accurate is much better than Assault Gun only sounding slightly less menacing.

Exactly. So you admit that the word 'assault' was deliberately inserted as a pejorative. Maybe we're actually making progress after all.

These weapons are used offensively.

Mine aren't. And neither are millions of others.

Defensive gun isn't going to go anywhere and it's futile to try and change the common term for this type of gun in the language.

Signed,

Joseph Goebbels

What the public calls these guns is beside the point though despite being hopeless, I understand your desire to call them something else without the word assault in there.

What the public calls these guns IS the point YOU were trying to make. You're actually celebrating the public's ignorance, AND citing the public as a credible source of authority. That's a very dumb argument. Don't backpedal from your mistake just because your argument got shredded.

 

[04SCTLS]

No, it really isn't. You're a legend only in your own mind. You don't even understand paragraphs.

Too bad your opinions don't possess any facts, though. Makes your entire worldview nothing but a fiction.

Also, it's notable that you failed to even address any of my potential solutions for the violence problem, upthread. You aren't really interested in solutions, only in poking conservatives and bemoaning the lack of a total police state.

Don't flatter yourself. I didn't come back here for you.

Exactly. So you admit that the word 'assault' was deliberately inserted as a pejorative. Maybe we're actually making progress after all.
Mine aren't. And neither are millions of others.
Signed,

Joseph Goebbels
What the public calls these guns IS the point YOU were trying to make. You're actually celebrating the public's ignorance, AND citing the public as a credible source of authority. That's a very dumb argument. Don't backpedal from your mistake just because your argument got shredded.

You're the one ignoring what the public calls things.
When a word is used to describe something long enough it falls into the popular vernacular and becomes the correct term for that.
Even Obama embraced "ObamaCare" as a term because that is what everybody was calling it even though it started out as a perjorative
created by conservatives.
In this case the word Assault Weapon has made it into legislation so it has legal meaning.
This is what these things are called now and Shag was the one making a big deal out of Assault Gun being a misleading term.
Too bad. It's become the term for these things now.

Assault weapon was used as a legal term for the 1994-2004 Assault Weapons Ban.

Assault weapon refers to different types of firearms, and is a term that has differing meanings and usages.
In discussions about gun laws and gun politics in the United States, an assault weapon is most commonly defined as a semi-automatic firearm possessing certain features similar to those of military firearms. Semi-automatic firearms fire one bullet (round) each time the trigger is pulled; the spent cartridge case is ejected and another cartridge is loaded into the chamber, without the manual operation of a bolt handle, a lever, or a sliding handgrip. An assault weapon has a detachable magazine, in conjunction with one, two, or more other features such as a pistol grip, a folding stock, a flash suppressor, or a bayonet lug.[1] Most assault weapons are rifles, but some are pistols or shotguns. Proposed legislation formerly under consideration attempted to define the term even more broadly to mean any semi-automatic firearm, any firearm with a detachable magazine, or handguns holding more than 10 rounds which includes the majority of all firearms,[2] but died in committee before even coming to a vote.[3] The exact definition of the term in this context thus varies among each of the various jurisdictions that limit or prohibit assault weapon manufacture, importation, sale, or possession, and legislative attempts are often made to change the definitions. Governing and defining laws include the now-expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban, as well as state and local laws. Whether or not assault weapons should be legally restricted more than other firearms, how they should be defined, and even whether or not the term "assault weapon" should be used at all, are questions subject to considerable debate.[4][5]
In more casual usage, the term "assault weapon" is sometimes conflated with the term "assault rifle". An assault rifle is a military rifle that utilizes an intermediate-power cartridge, and that generally is capable of full-automatic fire, where multiple rounds are fired continuously when the trigger is pulled one time — that is, a machine gun — or burst capable, where a burst of several rounds is fired when the trigger is pulled one time.[6] In the United States, full-automatic firearms are heavily restricted, and regulated by federal laws such as the National Firearms Act of 1934, as well as some state and local laws.
The use of the term "assault weapon" is also highly controversial, as critics assert that the term is a media invention,[7] or a term that is intended to cause confusion among the public by intentionally misleading the public to believe that assault weapons (as defined in legislation) are full automatic firearms when they are not.[8]

_______________________________________________________________

So an Assault Weapon has become the proper term for civilian versions vs Assault Rifle for the military version.
When there weren't many of these in the hands of civilians there was no need to call them something other than Combat Rifles
and such but new words get coined to all the time.

You win some you lose some.
You guys won the battle to get your hands on these weapons and now disproportionately cry that the term Assault Weapon basically hurts your feelings.
Oh Boo Hoo this loss you have suffered in the name of your Man Card.
The majority of Americans want stricter gun laws, handguns and all.
Let's see how Cuomo's NY legislation pans out and what Obama is going to propose today.
This fear of government action will certainly energize the gun lobby.

 

[04SCTLS]

Re your ideas
Your ideas basically amount to more guns to fight bad guys with good guys with guns which I suppose now that the country is flooded with weapons has some grim logic.

The powerful public sentiment though is that having all these guns available has led to more of these incidents in the first place and adding more guns to the situation is less desirable that reducing the number of guns available.

I will admit that this is mostly wishful thinking and faith in assertions out of despiration to do something but now that there's so many guns on the streets, with the reality of the situation your type of solutions are probably more result workable but what will emerge is a combination of both limiting of who can own guns and what type, stricter prosecution of straw purchasers and interstate trafficking laws for those who cross state lines to avoid restrictions and arming more law abiding citizens willing to possess firearms.

 

[04SCTLS]

MAD DASH: Gun buyers line up to purchase assault weapons, high-capacity magazines ahead of Cuomo signing law banning them

Lines stretched out the door of gun shops from Binghamton to Buffalo before the historic passage of new gun-control legislation that is designed to prevent a repeat of the Dec. 14 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School.


[url]http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/gun-buyers-line-assault-weapons-ban-article-1.1240881[/URL]

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...ill-newtown-school-massacre-article-1.1240644

Cuomo applauded lawmakers — particularly Republicans — for standing up to “extremists” — an apparent reference to the NRA, which had gun owners inundate legislators with calls and emails opposing the bill.

But proving just how difficult an issue it was for Republicans, state Senate GOP leader Dean Skelos of Long Island was not at the bill signing, even though he helped negotiate the package and voted for it.

Republicans insisted that the final package includes tougher criminal penalties and better ways to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

And so the new law, known as NY SAFE, for New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act, seeks to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill by requiring health professionals to report to the state if someone is a danger.

That person’s name would be added to a database that can be checked periodically when gun licenses are sought or renewed every five years.

The new statute also expands Kendra’s Law, which allows judges to order treatment for seriously disturbed individuals.

The package also mandates life without parole for anyone who kills an on-duty first responder — a response to the Christmas Eve shooting murders of two upstate firefighters responding to a blaze set by the killer.

Cuomo told the Daily News he hopes the “comprehensive” set of laws can be an example for other states and federal government.

“I think people tend to look to New York and a New York action resonates,” he said. “To the extent this provokes more debate and more action, all the better.”

For Cuomo, who is eyeing a potential 2016 presidential run, the tough gun package gives him another signature achievement less than two years after winning passage of a bill to legalize gay marriage.

“It’s a big plus in the shadow campaign already being waged for 2016,” said University of Virginia political expert Larry Sabato.

The bill moved so fast, some mistakes were made and will have to be corrected in separate legislation in the weeks ahead, lawmakers acknowledge. One problem: Police agencies were not exempted from the restrictions on bullets

 

[ford nut]

Don't flatter yourself. I didn't come back here for you.

Must be me your missing

This thread was a better read when it was cop vs truck driver.

 

[shagdrum]

Well you are entitled to your opinion (which you probably read somewhere) audacious and incredulous as I may find it.

Well, my "opinion" is backed up with facts and reason pretty well. Your's is more based in ignorant perceptions rationalized after the fact. While you may call my view sophistry, your's would actually fit the definition of that word much better.

I have said that guns should be identified by their function, not subjective (and partisan) views of intention. You have given no argument against that.

You seem to be avoiding the points being raised here. Do you think that our national discussion should cater to the most ignorant, irrational, lowest common denominator in society? Do you think that language and terminology has little to do with whether or not honest discourse is possible?

The cut and paste "wall 'o' text" posts are a little unbecoming, BTW.

 

[04SCTLS]

I just wanted to add that although I have never felt threatened enough to buy a gun I did feel threatened by a long time employee I had to let go who went funny in the head, because he legally owned an AK-47 and several semi automatic handguns he personally showed me when I went to visit him one time on a weekend at his house to see his renovation work.

After working for me for 5 years he had a bad motorcycle accident where he slid his big Harly into a parked car on gravel on a curve and was almost killed.

He lost his house due to a divorce his wife decided to go forth with then but because he was useful and talented I let him live in a camping trailer on my industrial property for 18 months while he recovered after getting out of the hospital.
She was also funny in the head and actually broke into the trailer one day he was away to gather information.

When we moved to our new larger location and tried to reintegrate him into our 90 employee company he became a menace and a threat to the company.
The government was taking 60% of his paycheck for child support and enforced healthcare, he would come in late and intoxicated, coming and going as he pleased, take multiple cigarette breaks, not obeying supervisors and using the N word and intimidating the other employees.
He was a bomb waiting to go off and finally we had to escort him off the property while he kept yelling "I'm going to get you!"
He was a big burly biker looking guy and in fear of him coming to shoot up the place in a suicidal revenge attack or showing up with some of his Biker buddies instead of firing him for cause I paid him wages and healthcare for 6 months and then laid him off so he could collect UI for another year.
He had said before that if I fired him he would be destroyed.

This defused the bomb but it cost me 75k to get rid of him and a lot of angst and as far as I know he still has his guns.

Although this is only annecdotal it has certainly colored my opinion about these firearms and gun control in general.

I would be interested in hearing if you or Foss or any other members had any personal experiences of real fear that may have added to your opinions.

That will make this discussion more interesting and less clinical.

 

[04SCTLS]

Well, my "opinion" is backed up with facts and reason pretty well. Your's is more based in ignorant perceptions rationalized after the fact. While you may call my view sophistry, your's would actually fit the definition of that word much better.

I have said that guns should be identified by their function, not subjective (and partisan) views of intention. You have given no argument against that.

You seem to be avoiding the points being raised here. Do you think that our national discussion should cater to the most ignorant, irrational, lowest common denominator in society? Do you think that language and terminology has little to do with whether or not honest discourse is possible?

The cut and paste "wall 'o' text" posts are a little unbecoming, BTW.

I don't buy your arguments or share most of your opinions in your approach to things, it's that simple.
These guns functions are primarily to kill as many people as possible in the shortest time.
They are now called Assault Weapons and that's that.
Live with it.
Stop wasting your time arguing definitions.
Nobody else I in the conservative press like Hot Air or The Daily Caller etc is majorly hung up on this like you are.

Fox News calls them Assault Weapons.
Only blowhard Rush seems to lather up about this as the professional entertainer that he is but discounting for that, who cares what he says anymore.