New York "SAFE" act turning into a gun ban program...

[ThunderKiss1965]

tissue?

Yes, weep for Constitutional rights.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Most of the left always claim they are against gun confiscation but every conversation on the issue inevitably leads to them bring up the UK's and Australia's bans.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

You bash people for not wanting to do anything about it, yet, you dont even want to discuss what you think we need to do? Whats the point of even logging on?

Because everything that can be said about the subject has been said. Gun nuts are either adamantly opposed any additional regulation, or think a crackdown on all people of color will fix the problem. We have people who should never be near a gun who are legally able to buy all they want.

Ok, thanks for the worthless posts.
If you decide you want to actually discuss it, let me know.

So do you have any ideas of how to reduce the problem, or are you just content to accept so many deaths as the price of everyone being able to carry a gun around?

Well, we cant keep people from killing themselves.
What can we do about gangs?
I am OK with regulations as long as it doesnt infringe on anyones fundamental right to own a weapon

Universal background checks don't infringe on anyone. They won't completely solve the problem, no one thing ill, but they will help.

No they won't criminals by their very nature ignore laws. Background checks will only affect law abiding citizens.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Cuomo and Deblasio just want the Democratic Party's Criminals and Terrorist to feel safe in New York.

 

[BULLDOG]

Because everything that can be said about the subject has been said. Gun nuts are either adamantly opposed any additional regulation, or think a crackdown on all people of color will fix the problem. We have people who should never be near a gun who are legally able to buy all they want.

Ok, thanks for the worthless posts.
If you decide you want to actually discuss it, let me know.

So do you have any ideas of how to reduce the problem, or are you just content to accept so many deaths as the price of everyone being able to carry a gun around?

Well, we cant keep people from killing themselves.
What can we do about gangs?
I am OK with regulations as long as it doesnt infringe on anyones fundamental right to own a weapon

Universal background checks don't infringe on anyone. They won't completely solve the problem, no one thing ill, but they will help.

No they won't criminals by their very nature ignore laws. Background checks will only affect law abiding citizens.

I guess that's why all law are a waste of time. Criminals don't follow them, and the rest don't need them. I'm truly amazed at your insight.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Ok, thanks for the worthless posts.
If you decide you want to actually discuss it, let me know.

So do you have any ideas of how to reduce the problem, or are you just content to accept so many deaths as the price of everyone being able to carry a gun around?

Well, we cant keep people from killing themselves.
What can we do about gangs?
I am OK with regulations as long as it doesnt infringe on anyones fundamental right to own a weapon

Universal background checks don't infringe on anyone. They won't completely solve the problem, no one thing ill, but they will help.

No they won't criminals by their very nature ignore laws. Background checks will only affect law abiding citizens.

I guess that's why all law are a waste of time. Criminals don't follow them, and the rest don't need them. I'm truly amazed at your insight.

Redundant laws that restrict the rights of law abiding citizens are a problem you know the ones criminals refuse to follow. I'm truly unamazed at you lack of insight.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The OP is false. Next?

What specifically is false?

The OP is making a silly assertion without solid, objective evidence. Thus it is "false".

 

[BULLDOG]

So do you have any ideas of how to reduce the problem, or are you just content to accept so many deaths as the price of everyone being able to carry a gun around?

Well, we cant keep people from killing themselves.
What can we do about gangs?
I am OK with regulations as long as it doesnt infringe on anyones fundamental right to own a weapon

Universal background checks don't infringe on anyone. They won't completely solve the problem, no one thing ill, but they will help.

No they won't criminals by their very nature ignore laws. Background checks will only affect law abiding citizens.

I guess that's why all law are a waste of time. Criminals don't follow them, and the rest don't need them. I'm truly amazed at your insight.

Redundant laws that restrict the rights of law abiding citizens are a problem you know the ones criminals refuse to follow. I'm truly unamazed at you lack of insight.

Will you name 1 law that you think is effective or required? One law that criminals don't ignore?

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Well, we cant keep people from killing themselves.
What can we do about gangs?
I am OK with regulations as long as it doesnt infringe on anyones fundamental right to own a weapon

Universal background checks don't infringe on anyone. They won't completely solve the problem, no one thing ill, but they will help.

No they won't criminals by their very nature ignore laws. Background checks will only affect law abiding citizens.

I guess that's why all law are a waste of time. Criminals don't follow them, and the rest don't need them. I'm truly amazed at your insight.

Redundant laws that restrict the rights of law abiding citizens are a problem you know the ones criminals refuse to follow. I'm truly unamazed at you lack of insight.

Will you name 1 law that you think is effective or required? One law that criminals don't ignore?

Criminals don't follow the law that's the point I'm trying to make the laws of this land are used for punishment. What you and others are advocating affects law abiding citizens. Because you refuse to see this you are either ignorant or your ultimate reason is a complete firearms ban.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Yep......nothing the anti gunners do is ever intended to actually keep people safe, or to allow gun owners to keep their guns.....

NRA-ILA: The Truth About New York State's Firearm Recertification Law - The Truth About Guns

The recertification form requires that the licensee disclose his or her “name, date of birth, gender, race, residential address, social security number, [and] firearms possessed by such license holder,” along with the listed identifying details (make, model, caliber, and serial number). (“Firearm” under the applicable New York law means a handgun or other gun of a size which may be concealed upon the person.)

A failure to recertify operates as an automatic revocation of the license. Possession of a “firearm” without a valid license is a criminal offense, and the revocation makes the person ineligible to apply for or renew a license. Once a license is revoked, state law mandates that every gun owned or possessed by the licensee be “surrendered” to a law enforcement agency.

A New York State Police field guide on the SAFE Act, prepared by attorneys for the Division of State Police, unequivocally instructs officers that when “a licensee becomes ineligible to hold a pistol permit, the Safe Act requires the person to surrender all firearms to police, including all rifles and shotgunsfor which no license or registration is required.” (Emphasis in the original.)

Should the person fail to comply by turning in every gun, the SAFE Act (codified as NY Penal Law § 400.00(11)(c)) not only authorizes but requires that police officers confiscate such property: the guns “shall be removed and declared a nuisance and any police officer or peace officer acting pursuant to his or her special duties is authorized to remove any and all such weapons.”

Once the gun is deemed a “nuisance,” the owner loses the ability to reclaim or legally transfer it. State law directs that nuisance guns be destroyed without the need for a court order or other judicial proceedings, and courts have confirmed that a person has no “legitimate possessory interest” in firearms for which he or she has no license.

The policy of recertification is clear: licensees who fail to comply – by inadvertently missing the deadline, for example – face having all guns, and not just the firearms covered by the license, permanently confiscated by law enforcement officers.

Far from being overblown hyperbole, describing the recertification law as “the camel’s nose in the tent of gun confiscation” is not only accurate but arguably, an unduly benign portrayal of a grossly disproportionate regime to enforce recertification through mandatory surrender, police seizure, and destruction of otherwise legal property.

Even assuming that license recertification is “a step for safety,” as the New Yorkers Against Gun Violence member claims [in a recent editorial] , it’s not clear how much less secure or safe residents would be if the recertification process included, instead, a grace period for late compliance or imposed a penalty fee for licensees who miss the deadlines but are eligible to recertify.

This is fraud. Passing gun laws to prevent criminals from committing crimes with guns is futile. They really don’t know if it will work, but they really don’t care either. Their purpose is to remove guns from law abiding citizens by making the process to own a gun so cumbersome that law abiding people will just give up their guns. The law is also racist. It is designed to make criminals out of minorities who want to own a gun. So if you are a law abiding minority living in a poor a crime ridden area of New York City, it is a matter of public record that you own a gun.

Here Is a List of All the Assholes Handsome Law-Abiding Citizens Who Own Guns Some People in New York City
Last month, the Journal News sparked a firestorm of protest when it published a mappable database of every licensed gun owner in Westchester and Rockland counties, north of New York City. The paper obtained the data—which New York state law explicitly and unambiguously demands be made public—through open records requests. The reaction was swift and furious—gun rights and privacy advocates published the names and addresses of the paper's editors in retaliation, and the paper (ironically) hired armed guards to protect against threats.

 

[2aguy]

Ok, thanks for the worthless posts.
If you decide you want to actually discuss it, let me know.

So do you have any ideas of how to reduce the problem, or are you just content to accept so many deaths as the price of everyone being able to carry a gun around?

Well, we cant keep people from killing themselves.
What can we do about gangs?
I am OK with regulations as long as it doesnt infringe on anyones fundamental right to own a weapon

Universal background checks don't infringe on anyone. They won't completely solve the problem, no one thing ill, but they will help.

Yes...they do.....they would cost money to do and they require universal gun registration...both are violations of the Constitution and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Do background checks from licensed dealers require gun registration?

No....because records of sales are already kept.....in order for a background check for a private sale to be enforced, you need to know who the first owner of the gun is so when they sell it, you can tell if a background check was done prior to the sale...dumb ass...otherwise, they simply say, hey, we didn't sell it, it always belonged to that guy....and they will use that point to push for universal gun registration...which is what they really want.

 

[2aguy]

Ok, thanks for the worthless posts.
If you decide you want to actually discuss it, let me know.

So do you have any ideas of how to reduce the problem, or are you just content to accept so many deaths as the price of everyone being able to carry a gun around?

Well, we cant keep people from killing themselves.
What can we do about gangs?
I am OK with regulations as long as it doesnt infringe on anyones fundamental right to own a weapon

Universal background checks don't infringe on anyone. They won't completely solve the problem, no one thing ill, but they will help.

No they won't criminals by their very nature ignore laws. Background checks will only affect law abiding citizens.

I guess that's why all law are a waste of time. Criminals don't follow them, and the rest don't need them. I'm truly amazed at your insight.

And again with this dumb point. We already have laws that state that if you use a gun to commit a crime, you go to jail. We already have laws that state if you are a prohibited person, like a felon, and are caught with a gun...you go to jail. We already have those laws and those are all the laws we need to control gun crime. What you guys want is laws that keep law abiding people from owning guns...by step by step making it all but impossible to comply with all the hurdles you set up to buy, own and carry a gun......

Our current laws against using a gun for rape, robbery and murder cover every aspect of the gun debate....with the benefit of not affecting law abiding gun owners...and there is the rub.....you could care less about criminals and their gun use, since you know you can already arrest them because they actually break laws. What drives you absolutely bat shit F*****g insane, is that there are people out there you can't put in jail...they have guns and yet they don't use them to commit crimes...so you can't touch them....so you want more and more felony traps set up so they fall into your clutches...and then you can punish them for the sin of gun ownership...

That is the problem....

 

[2aguy]

Well, we cant keep people from killing themselves.
What can we do about gangs?
I am OK with regulations as long as it doesnt infringe on anyones fundamental right to own a weapon

Universal background checks don't infringe on anyone. They won't completely solve the problem, no one thing ill, but they will help.

No they won't criminals by their very nature ignore laws. Background checks will only affect law abiding citizens.

I guess that's why all law are a waste of time. Criminals don't follow them, and the rest don't need them. I'm truly amazed at your insight.

Redundant laws that restrict the rights of law abiding citizens are a problem you know the ones criminals refuse to follow. I'm truly unamazed at you lack of insight.

Will you name 1 law that you think is effective or required? One law that criminals don't ignore?

That is easy and we do it every time you bring up "reasonable gun laws." It is against the law to use a gun to commit a rape, robbery or murder. Those are effective, they work, and they specifically target illegal behavior, and more to the point, they do not impact law abiding people in any way.

 

[2aguy]

The OP is false. Next?

What specifically is false?

The OP is making a silly assertion without solid, objective evidence. Thus it is "false".

No...it is accurate....these gun owners have not used their guns to commit any crime....the only "crime" they will have committed will be a paperwork/deadline error....and for failing to recertify a license, they will lose their Right to Bear Arms forever in that state....

 

[BULLDOG]

Universal background checks don't infringe on anyone. They won't completely solve the problem, no one thing ill, but they will help.

No they won't criminals by their very nature ignore laws. Background checks will only affect law abiding citizens.

I guess that's why all law are a waste of time. Criminals don't follow them, and the rest don't need them. I'm truly amazed at your insight.

Redundant laws that restrict the rights of law abiding citizens are a problem you know the ones criminals refuse to follow. I'm truly unamazed at you lack of insight.

Will you name 1 law that you think is effective or required? One law that criminals don't ignore?

That is easy and we do it every time you bring up "reasonable gun laws." It is against the law to use a gun to commit a rape, robbery or murder. Those are effective, they work, and they specifically target illegal behavior, and more to the point, they do not impact law abiding people in any way.

Effective? Criminals use guns to commit rape and murder. According to your rhetoric, those laws are useless because criminals don't care about the law.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Everytown on Twitter

Our gun nuts are so proud of this.

It isn't the guns...it is democrat judges who keep letting gun criminals back on the streets.....and the revolving door for violent gun criminals, not law abiding gun owners, is the problem....

What is the primary difference between those nations and the US? It is not that we are more lenient than they are, their laws are more lenient than ours. They are all rich nations, like us. And they all have an educated population. The main difference is their gun laws. Now, if you do not want those laws here, you had better propose and implement some effective laws to stop the gun violence in this nation. Or you will get the gun laws those nations have.

They have different cultures...cultured created through feudal systems and societies that went through 2 World Wars...so they are behind us since their cities were destroyed twice in 20 years......they are now catching up.....their social welfare states are no longer able to pass on the values that made their countries civilized....and they are importing violent, 3rd world criminals.

You guys are so blinded by your hatred of guns, you can't see the truth.

Now we now your opinion. No, their (British) cities were not destroyed twice in two World Wars. Germany's was in WWII.

2aguy is so blinded by his love of guns and their killing, he won't see the truth.

 

[2aguy]

No they won't criminals by their very nature ignore laws. Background checks will only affect law abiding citizens.

I guess that's why all law are a waste of time. Criminals don't follow them, and the rest don't need them. I'm truly amazed at your insight.

Redundant laws that restrict the rights of law abiding citizens are a problem you know the ones criminals refuse to follow. I'm truly unamazed at you lack of insight.

Will you name 1 law that you think is effective or required? One law that criminals don't ignore?

That is easy and we do it every time you bring up "reasonable gun laws." It is against the law to use a gun to commit a rape, robbery or murder. Those are effective, they work, and they specifically target illegal behavior, and more to the point, they do not impact law abiding people in any way.

Effective? Criminals use guns to commit rape and murder. According to your rhetoric, those laws are useless because criminals don't care about the law.

Nope....not the argument....laws against rape, robbery and murder do not prevent criminals from committing those acts, they give us the ability to arrest and jail them. Your gun control laws do stop law abiding people from accessing their Right to Keep and Bear arms, but do not stop criminals from getting guns. We already have laws that allow us to lock up people who use guns to commit crimes...you want laws that prevent law abiding people from owning and carrying guns...laws that will not effect criminals in any way.

 

[2aguy]

Everytown on Twitter

Our gun nuts are so proud of this.

It isn't the guns...it is democrat judges who keep letting gun criminals back on the streets.....and the revolving door for violent gun criminals, not law abiding gun owners, is the problem....

What is the primary difference between those nations and the US? It is not that we are more lenient than they are, their laws are more lenient than ours. They are all rich nations, like us. And they all have an educated population. The main difference is their gun laws. Now, if you do not want those laws here, you had better propose and implement some effective laws to stop the gun violence in this nation. Or you will get the gun laws those nations have.

They have different cultures...cultured created through feudal systems and societies that went through 2 World Wars...so they are behind us since their cities were destroyed twice in 20 years......they are now catching up.....their social welfare states are no longer able to pass on the values that made their countries civilized....and they are importing violent, 3rd world criminals.

You guys are so blinded by your hatred of guns, you can't see the truth.

Now we now your opinion. No, their (British) cities were not destroyed twice in two World Wars. Germany's was in WWII.

2aguy is so blinded by his love of guns and their killing, he won't see the truth.

The Battle of Britain? Really......moron. The Europeans were set back by World War 1 and World War 2.....their culture also helped to keep their young males civilized. Now, they are catching up, and their welfare states are destroying their ability to civilize their young males. That is why violent crime is higher in Britain now, and why gun crime keeps going up in Britain.

You hate guns......that is why none of your solutions for gun crime will work. You focus on law abiding gun owners because they are easy to punish, you simply pass a new law, and they will comply, meanwhile, the ones actually using guns for rape, robbery and murder, will continue to use guns for rape, robbery and murder.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Quit aimlessly chattering like a chipmunk.

Your last paragraph is your typical go - to rant when you are losing the discussion.

 

[2aguy]

Quit aimlessly chattering like a chipmunk.

Your last paragraph is your typical go - to rant when you are losing the discussion.

To tell the truth when someone is lying about gun control issues...that is what I do......you want guns banned, you don't want crime stopped.