ThomasDenton 79 Report Share Posted January 15, 2013 http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/15/16515653-new-york-passes-major-gun-control-law-first-since-newtown-massacre?lite What's everyone's response to this? Too much, too little, just right, or just wrong altogether? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance 228 Report Share Posted January 15, 2013 background checks for ammo sales is way over the line. I think anyone who owns a gun should be subject to being a licensed owner...Federal or State would be fine with me. That's not an excuse to tax people or charge for it either...if you have to cover the admin cost involved with a couple of bucks fee then thats fine...part of that should include a basic mental screening, if there is anything that pops up in that screening then a more in depth screening should be required. I know a lot of people who have no business owning a gun...either they can't control their own violence or they are just bat shit crazy to begin with. all this stuff with assault rifle bans is going to do nothing at all to curb gun violence or just violence in general. Most of the time you could do just as much damage with a Glock and a bunch of 10 round clips at close range like in a school or in a mall...or whatever...if you are not shooting across an open field of 30+ yards or more then you could do just as much damage as you could with an assault rifle...no doubt about it. I guess you get what you get for now until the next election and maybe the GOP will put up someone who can actually win and maybe they will be able to correct all the nonsense. In the mean time this is all just a bunch of political BS and does nothing to address the real issues/problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redtiger 1,740 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 I think Lance is pretty much spot on. Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who the article quotes as saying the posession of high capacity magazines is "nonsensical to a civil society" seems to be delusional to me. Murdering children is uncivilized, owning a firearm to protect yourself and your family is not. Honestly if were talkin about doing damage a psycho with a .45lc revolver and a few speed loaders could really hurt alot of people in a school setting if there is no one there to stop him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thundercloud 179 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 The proof test is would any of this have stopped Sandy Hook? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance 228 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 The proof test is would any of this have stopped Sandy Hook? no not even close. Unless new gun laws will make it illegal for people with mentally ill persons living in a home to have them. Which is not really a bad idea in my opinion, and would do a lot more to "protect" people than banning high cap magazines or assault rifles. I also think a legit firearms training program should be part of everyone's life who owns a gun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thundercloud 179 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 I agree. For me their missing the whole target. Has to be focused on mental illness and especialy meds. Meds altar the mine to the point they have no feeling of morality. Meds, mental illness, setting in front of some of these games without the love a parent, it's like brianwashing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance 228 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 i dont blame the games so much...reminds me of the whole PMRC stuff back in the 80s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thundercloud 179 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 The games mean nothing to somebody who has a strong moral base. But in the theater event and the sandy hook these poor fellows just didn't have must of a base at all, add a few drugs and you have no base at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ISOaPBR 15 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 this is all just a bunch of political BS and does nothing to address the real issues/problems. Yep. The thing about criminals is that they have a tendency to break laws. What gets me is that the folks hollering the loudest about gun control are the ones who know the least about guns. High-magazine clips? Armor-piercing hollow points? Some of the stuff you read just makes you shake your head. When Vanity Fair has some guy writing about guns, you just gotta laugh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMan 3,569 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 When Vanity Fair has some guy writing about guns, you just gotta laugh. I bet he wears pink slippers...:D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsons 178 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 (edited) What gets me is that the folks hollering the loudest about gun control are the ones who know the least about guns. What about guys like this... http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/mcchrystal-says-serious-action-needed-gun-control-174328785.html McChrystal says ‘serious action’ needed on gun control Speaking on MSNBC’s "Morning Joe" Tuesday, Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the former commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, said some weapons should be carried only by soldiers. "I spent a career carrying typically either an M16, and later an M4 carbine," he said. "And an M4 carbine fires a .223 caliber round, which is 5.56 millimeters, at about 3,000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It's designed to do that. And that's what our soldiers ought to carry." The general added, "I personally don't think there's any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America. I believe that we've got to take a serious look. I understand everybody's desire to have whatever they want, but we’ve got to protect our children, we’ve got to protect our police, we've got to protect our population. And I think we have to take a very mature look at that." The general, who had to resign his position as commander of the U.S. Forces in Afghanistan after a Rolling Stone magazine profile in 2010 that included unflattering comments about the Obama administration, is back in the public eye to promote his book, "My Share of the Task." The former military man told the show, “I think serious action is necessary. Sometimes we talk about very limited actions on the edges, and I just don’t think that’s enough.” Asked what his message would be to the NRA and the House Judiciary Committee, he said, “I think we have to look at legislation. The number of people in America killed by firearms is extraordinary compared to other nations. And I don’t think we’re a bloodthirsty culture, and so I think we need to look at everything we can do to safeguard our people.” Edited January 16, 2013 by parsons Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redtiger 1,740 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 (edited) Well the man definately knows about guns but he seems to lack some common sense. His arguement seems to be that the .223 round is too powerful for civilian use, as most of us know a 30-30 or a 30.06(common deer rifles for those that dont know) both fire a much larger bullet at similar velocities(in general not as high as a .233). So his arguement that the .223 is too powerful for civilians and should be removed from the open market doesent hold water. The arguement that the platform used for .223s isint suited for civilian use can be made but the arguement that the round is too powerful is just ignorant imo. Those of us who see gun control as a "slipery slope" would point to these type of comments as proof of where gun control will go in the future. Edited January 16, 2013 by redtiger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance 228 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 A hollow point .45 would do much more damage at close range. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redtiger 1,740 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 Very true, it's just an absurd approach to the cub control argument Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thundercloud 179 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 The logic when the military went to the .223 was that it was more app to injury than kill thus creating more of a logistics problem for your enemy. The more injuried you have the more supply train the more medics, medical ablity that has to be build in to the support structure if not you have a very demoratalizing problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.01bb665814ffc257795fe158cb2045c7.png.8a531ac878a82772b21014d7a6167582.png){kind=logo}
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.