Yahoo/AP: NY seals 1st state gun laws since Newtown massacre

[AsburySkinsFan]

Here's an interesting video I came across.

It is a look at the 2nd Amendment as a whole and the history of gun control.

....not sure why it isn't embedding the video even with the tags. :whoknows:

http://youtu.be/TIAxafRMVBg

[mikered30]

You do of course realize that we don't take legal action to stop one crazy person, or base law on a single isolated event, they are the exceptional circumstances which cannot be prevented (case in point the Ft Knox shooter). !

. Megans law, Brady Bill (which was statistically a failure), Kristen's Law, Lindbergh law, and several more laws were passed based on a single event.

I am still not sure about the potential ban on high capacity mags. If I have one, am I supposed to destroy it, turn it in the cops, or I just wont be allowed to buy any if Congress passes the law? As will it be illegal to buy or illegal to own (same goes with "assault" weapons)? During the assault weapon ban, it only made it illegal to buy assault weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment, not illegal to own ones that were grandfathered in. If the ban would not have expired in 2004, it was unlikely that his mother would have the bushmaster, but she still would have had the pistols. Instead of the bushmaster, she could have had a shotgun that he could have stolen. Either way he would have still killed the kids, but if got mental therapy this possibly never could have happened. The gun isn't the problem, it is the person that is pulling the trigger.

I feel like what Obama is pushing is a feel good law. He is using this executive power but it doesn't actually address what he signed today and how it would have stopped Lanza from his shooting spree. Criminals will always find the weapons they want. I believe that a weapons ban would work just as good as our war on drugs. We can have a ban on anything we want but as long as there is somebody that wants something there will be someone willing to sell it to them. If they don't want to use an assault weapon, they can use any other weapon (shotgun, pistol, cross bow, fertilizer, pencil, car, hammer, C4, gasoline, etc, ) that isn't banned.

I am not sure where assault rifles show up in the FBI data base for murder, but there were 323 murders from "rifles" and almost 9,900 deaths from drunk drivers in the US. There were more murders by shotguns than "rifles" in 2011. I don't hear a big outcry to ban alcohol, but there is a big outcry to ban assault rifles. Obviously one murder from any weapon is one too many. I am all for reducing murders, but passing legislation that won't work gives a false sense of security.

[wysknz1]

I'm so glad you're not in a position to make these decisions.

The 2nd ammendment is to protect us from an out of control government. And it's pertnear there.

[Larry]

I am not sure where assault rifles show up in the FBI data base for murder, but there were 323 murders from "rifles" and almost 9,900 deaths from drunk drivers in the US.

Just pointing out that you're comparing intentional murders from rifles, and accidental deaths from drunk driving.

I think somebody earlier in the thread posted total gun deaths (including accidents and suicides) and total car deaths, and the numbers were pretty close.

[AsburySkinsFan]

. Megans law, Brady Bill (which was statistically a failure), Kristen's Law, Lindbergh law, and several more laws were passed based on a single event.

No, those are bills that use a name and a face to address a wider spread issue, there is a difference between that and the constant silliness we hear from the Right which screams at EVERY propsed gun law, "Well that wouldn't have stopped Sandy Hook!" Well no :censored: not every law is trying to do that, what's more is you'll never stop the maniac with a gun jst as the Ft Knox shooting shows.

---------- Post added January-16th-2013 at 11:49 PM ----------

The 2nd ammendment is to protect us from an out of control government. And it's pertnear there.

I always get a kick out of people who have the Red Dawn fantasy.

[twa]

never mind

[Redskins Diehard]

During the assault weapon ban, it only made it illegal to buy assault weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment, not illegal to own ones that were grandfathered in. If the ban would not have expired in 2004, it was unlikely that his mother would have the bushmaster, but she still would have had the pistols. Instead of the bushmaster, she could have had a shotgun that he could have stolen. Either way he would have still killed the kids, but if got mental therapy this possibly never could have happened. The gun isn't the problem, it is the person that is pulling the trigger.

I feel like what Obama is pushing is a feel good law. He is using this executive power but it doesn't actually address what he signed today and how it would have stopped Lanza from his shooting spree. Criminals will always find the weapons they want. I believe that a weapons ban would work just as good as our war on drugs. We can have a ban on anything we want but as long as there is somebody that wants something there will be someone willing to sell it to them. If they don't want to use an assault weapon, they can use any other weapon (shotgun, pistol, cross bow, fertilizer, pencil, car, hammer, C4, gasoline, etc, ) that isn't banned.

I am not sure where assault rifles show up in the FBI data base for murder, but there were 323 murders from "rifles" and almost 9,900 deaths from drunk drivers in the US. There were more murders by shotguns than "rifles" in 2011. I don't hear a big outcry to ban alcohol, but there is a big outcry to ban assault rifles. Obviously one murder from any weapon is one too many. I am all for reducing murders, but passing legislation that won't work gives a false sense of security.

I think one other thing about the previous assault weapon ban was that it was also still legal to purchase weapons that were no longer being manufactured. I remember going to the Y2K Gunshow(talk about a good people watching opportunity!) in Georgia and I wasn't all that familiar with the ban. Many of the vendors separated themselves by selling "Pre Ban" weapons for a significantly higher price. But they were available.

Lanza could have access to a weapon with the same relevant functionality with or without the ban. Maybe his mother would not have purchased one if it did not look like a military issue one...but the functionality would be the same.

I agree with your point about a false sense of security. All of the "Team Ban" folks think they are accomplishing something but they really aren't. And if you point that out they get righteous with the "gun nut" talk.

With respect to the Executive Orders that came out yesterday(I think). They don't look all that controversial to me. I like the "Appoint a Director of the ATF" order. Could that be filed under "note to self"? Or did it require an executive order? But seriously...the incentive to hire more school resource officers...does that mean placing armed 'security"/police officers in schools? That is what the school resource officer was when I was in school....a county police officer that was assigned to and worked in the school. I am just not sure if that is the standard definition of one or was unique to my locality.

[SkinsWarrior81]

No, those are bills that use a name and a face to address a wider spread issue, there is a difference between that and the constant silliness we hear from the Right which screams at EVERY propsed gun law, "Well that wouldn't have stopped Sandy Hook!" Well no :censored: not every law is trying to do that, what's more is you'll never stop the maniac with a gun jst as the Ft Knox shooting shows.

---------- Post added January-16th-2013 at 11:49 PM ----------

I always get a kick out of people who have the Red Dawn fantasy.

I get a kick out of people who have this idea that everyone has a Red Dawn fantasy. The 2nd amendment, and the intent behind it, were there so that the government cannot simply use a pen to alter society in a tyrannical way. No one has this delusion of blowing up tanks and the military attacking the civilian population. That whole notion is a fallacy. No one in the military is going to suddenly start killing disobeying citizens. However, the civilian ownership and proficiency with rifles, with high capacity magazines, presents at least a resistance in name to tyranny.

Just because you may not like it, does not mean I / we are not entitled to that right.

The knowledge of bloodshed is what keeps government in line in an underlying way, not insane Rambo heroics fantasized by random people who would be taking down the world's most advanced military.

[Burgold]

The knowledge of bloodshed is what keeps government in line in an underlying way, not insane Rambo heroics fantasized by random people who would be taking down the world's most advanced military.

You think government is in line and not a bunch of spoiled, misbehaving, corrupt crooks and tyrants? You think the government is afraid and toeing a careful and responsible line?

Just how many times have you bought the Brooklyn Bridge

[DC9]

ballistics, how do they work again??

Do you have any idea of the kinetic energy a round from a .45 to your leg would bring vs a .22?

Yes. Yes I do. And as I said, I'd rather be shot with a .45 than a .22... full disclosure, I am a former Army Ranger and I've personally seen the difference between large caliber and small caliber rounds and their effect on humans.

Now... would I rather be shot in the head with a .22 or a .45? Tough call, and there is more stuff for a .22 round to bounce off of inside the head (like... the skull), but I'd take my chances with a .22 because there is a less chance that half of my brain would be on the wall next to my body.

But in the leg it's the .45 all day long.

EDIT: And as mentioned somewhere in here before, the reason that the military went to less lethal rounds is that it took more people out of the fight (ideally). You shoot someone with a .45 (1911 or Thompson in WW2) or 30-06 (M1 Garand or 1903 or .30 cal water cooled machine gun in WW2) they are dead more often than not.

You shoot someone with 5.56 and 9mm in Vietnam through the present, you are IDEALLY taking an injured enemy and another enemy to aide that injured Soldier out of the fight. So it's 2 for 1 versus just icing one dude.

Now, that doesn't necissarily workout math-wise (which is why I say "Ideally") in an Asymetric Conflict, but that was the whole idea behind it.

EDIT 2: And just to give you one more example, I've seen (with my own eyes) a guy get shot in the right lower leg with a .22 and it came out of his hip and he died from internal bleeding a few days later. I've seen guys shot in the mouth with a 7.62 and they were returned to duty within 5 days with some dental work and a swollen tongue. You pick your poison. Obviously, you would love to avoid getting shot all together

[SkinsWarrior81]

You think government is in line and not a bunch of spoiled, misbehaving, corrupt crooks and tyrants? You think the government is afraid and toeing a careful and responsible line?

Just how many times have you bought the Brooklyn Bridge

I never said I believed that... I think the government is slowly creeping into the kind of monstrosity that would potentially require the 2nd amendment to be alive and well. Taking it away or reducing it to an impotent capacity is a pretty awful idea in my mind. Just because politicians are already awful, slimy people doesn't mean you should abandon all potential resistance. *shrug*

[@DCGoldPants]

While this fight continues on a national level I think we'll see a lot of blue states follow NY here with stricter laws while trading that for opening up state land for responsible hunters. Then it'll be an interesting states rights vs. the 2nd amendment fight which will be counter-intuitive to a lot of the folks who want few laws restricting gun ownership.

[SkinsWarrior81]

While this fight continues on a national level I think we'll see a lot of blue states follow NY here with stricter laws while trading that for opening up state land for responsible hunters. Then it'll be an interesting states rights vs. the 2nd amendment fight which will be counter-intuitive to a lot of the folks who want few laws restricting gun ownership.

Yes. it definitely seemed that the president balked on his speech yesterday and is leaving the whole thing up to the state level, knowing that his AWB / Mag ban would not pass the smell test in congress, but introducing it in a token way anyway.

This could/should get interesting in the near future.

[@DCGoldPants]

If the states can get it done on their own, good for them. Some will, some won't. It'll be pretty much down the Red/Blue line and we'll see if it makes a difference.

[wysknz1]

[quote

I always get a kick out of people who have the Red Dawn fantasy.

You're wrong. Red Dawn was an invasion from outside the US. My comment is about the invasion and assault from our own country. Just read the 26 "executive action" items "O" implemented. Words like assess, launch, help, direct, give opportunity, propose, address, clarify etc etc open ended general statements that can be taken to extremes. And before you go off on me and my intolerance for "O" the worst thing this office ever did was implement the homeland security fiasco started by that Texan. I stand firm on my belief this government is out of control and assaulting our freedoms. Even here in Wyoming, I've lived here most of my 55 years and to get a simple drivers license. http://www.dot.state.wy.us/files/content/sites/wydot/files/Required%20Documents%20Dec2012a.pdf in a state with 500,000 residents. And why should a simple income tax code be 1,000 of pages long?? I could go on, but I'm probably talking to a rock.

[Redskins Diehard]

EDIT: And as mentioned somewhere in here before, the reason that the military went to less lethal rounds is that it took more people out of the fight (ideally). You shoot someone with a .45 (1911 or Thompson in WW2) or 30-06 (M1 Garand or 1903 or .30 cal water cooled machine gun in WW2) they are dead more often than not.

You shoot someone with 5.56 and 9mm in Vietnam through the present, you are IDEALLY taking an injured enemy and another enemy to aide that injured Soldier out of the fight. So it's 2 for 1 versus just icing one dude.

Now, that doesn't necissarily workout math-wise (which is why I say "Ideally") in an Asymetric Conflict, but that was the whole idea behind it.

Not that it matters much in the context of this discussion but this is largely an "old wives tale" of the US Military. Believe me...I have heard it also. The US Military switched to the current ammunition largely, if not solely, because it is the "NATO" round.

Not sure if you saw this play out in your experience...I saw it more in Afghanistan than Iraq. But the 5.56 beyond small caliber/high velocity go right through the "skinnier" Afghanis and cause little damage. The discussion of ballistic effect can't be limited to caliber, or velocity...it is a combination of both that lead to effect.

With you on the best option is to avoid getting shot in the first place.

[AsburySkinsFan]

You're wrong. Red Dawn was an invasion from outside the US. My comment is about the invasion and assault from our own country. Just read the 26 "executive action" items "O" implemented. Words like assess, launch, help, direct, give opportunity, propose, address, clarify etc etc open ended general statements that can be taken to extremes. And before you go off on me and my intolerance for "O" the worst thing this office ever did was implement the homeland security fiasco started by that Texan. I stand firm on my belief this government is out of control and assaulting our freedoms. Even here in Wyoming, I've lived here most of my 55 years and to get a simple drivers license. http://www.dot.state.wy.us/files/content/sites/wydot/files/Required%20Documents%20Dec2012a.pdf in a state with 500,000 residents. And why should a simple income tax code be 1,000 of pages long?? I could go on, but I'm probably talking to a rock.

Well have fun with that, I don't entertain ill-informed paranoia.....at least for long, it is fun to poke it with a stick though.

[DC9]

Not that it matters much in the context of this discussion but this is largely an "old wives tale" of the US Military. Believe me...I have heard it also. The US Military switched to the current ammunition largely, if not solely, because it is the "NATO" round.

Not sure if you saw this play out in your experience...I saw it more in Afghanistan than Iraq. But the 5.56 beyond small caliber/high velocity go right through the "skinnier" Afghanis and cause little damage. The discussion of ballistic effect can't be limited to caliber, or velocity...it is a combination of both that lead to effect.

With you on the best option is to avoid getting shot in the first place.

Yeah, roger on the NATO thing. But one insteresting point I have on that is a lot of Special units out there (well... shouldn't say "a lot" but a few) get to pick what they use. I know a lot of guys who prefer .45 handguns over 9mm all day specifically for the reasons I stated about "not having killing power." Conventional units don't get that opportunity because of the fact that we are using NATO rounds. But when you dig deep into why NATO went with those rounds (and why we did by default as a member of NATO) it's because of the reasons that I mentioned... ideally it takes more than one man out of the fight.

And as far as actions on objective, multiple rounds in controlled pairs leave little to the imagination when it comes to effectiveness. It all depended on which part of which country you were in. But they all presented their own challenges as well as disadvantages to exploit.

The one thing I'll say that is different in my experiences between the two theatres is that we saw more AK's in IZ and we see more Martini-Henry's in AF. I remember the first time I saw someone pull a Matrini-Henry on me... I almost **** myself. I remember being in High School and visiting an old buddy of my father's... he let me shoot one... I "chopped" a tree down with about 8 rounds. Not a huge tree, but over a solid 10 inches to a foot wide. That'll ruin your day in a hurry. Obviously the negatives to that is that it is not an automatic weapon.

I can remember riding the exfil back to my FOB, thinking to myself... how the **** can these guys afford to shoot Martini-Henry's, lol? This guy (my dad's buddy) was telling me that it was like $2.00 per round... and this was in the late 1990's!

[alexey]

...

I stand firm on my belief this government is out of control and assaulting our freedoms. ...And why should a simple income tax code be 1,000 of pages long?? ...

Let's distinguish between government assaulting our freedoms (taking away guns) and politicians selling out the government and the country (tax code).

I see the first as a distraction so that people don't pay attention to the second.

[Jumbo]

You get exposed to some of the cognition of many gun "enthusiasts" and then think "and these are the people with lots of guns" and I can see why more balanced folks (including others who really like guns) may be concerned about "proliferation." But, IMO, "all the worry" about eventually serious erosion of what so many see as "our gun rights" is not "all crazy." I think it's worth keeping an informed and rational but scrutinizing eye on it.

From a personal psychology perspective (leaving sociocultural themes aside), the "gun discussion" is another one of those that seems to draw out a large helping of nutterism, at varying levels from "lite" to "magnum" <pun intended > .

For some more from a "Don't tread on me!" POV:

http://news.yahoo.com/sheriffs-state-lawmakers-push-back-gun-control-100605550.html

GRANTS PASS, Ore. (AP) — From Oregon to Mississippi, President Barack Obama's proposed ban on new assault weapons and large-capacity magazines struck a nerve among rural lawmen and lawmakers, many of whom vowed to ignore any restrictions — and even try to stop federal officials from enforcing gun policy in their jurisdictions.

"A lot of sheriffs are now standing up and saying, 'Follow the Constitution,'" said Josephine County Sheriff Gil Gilbertson, whose territory covers the timbered mountains of southwestern Oregon.

But their actual powers to defy federal law are limited. And much of the impassioned rhetoric amounts to political posturing until — and if — Congress acts.

In the late 70's/80's I lived in So. Or. And had 20 acres in a low-population (on what I'd call a hillside and they called a mountainside) area outside of Medford. Most of what neighbors I had turned out to be comprised of serious "survivalists" (their term---underground bunkers were a norm) and I had a blast shooting things up with them. Tell you what, I didn't fear for the safety of all my high-end electronics being ripped off by meth heads pillaging remote homes. :pfft:

Talk of commies invading or the government "turning on us" was standard fare. I thought it was interesting and almost counterintuitive that they were really into growing and smoking high-grade weed, too. Some of those guys are dead of old age or bad middle-age health by now, and I imagine they have bequeathed their stockpiles, and tried to do the same with their thinking, to the kids they were raising.

Gun advocates have seen Obama as an enemy despite his expression of support for the interpretation of the Second Amendment as a personal right to have guns.

"If someone kicks open my door and they're entering my home, I'd like as many bullets as I could to protect my children, and if I only have three, then the ability for me to protect my family is greatly diminished," Bryant said. "And what we're doing now is saying, 'We're standing against the federal government taking away our civil liberties.'"

Tennessee Republican state Rep. Joe Carr wants to make it a state crime for federal agents to enforce any ban on firearms or ammunition. Carr instead called for more armed guards at schools.

A Wyoming bill specifies that any federal limitation on guns would be unenforceable. It also would make it a state felony for federal agents to try to enforce restrictions. "I think there are a lot of people who would want to take all of our guns if they could," said co-sponsor Rep. Kendell Kroeker, a Republican.

Republican state Sen. Larry Hicks credited Wyoming's high rate of gun ownership for a low rate of gun violence. "Our kids grow up around firearms, and they also grow up hunting, and they know what the consequences are of taking a life," Hicks said. "We're not insulated from the real world in Wyoming."

In Minnesota, Pine County Sheriff Robin Cole sent an open letter to residents saying he did not believe the federal government had the right to tell the states how to regulate firearms. He said he would refuse to enforce any federal mandate he felt violated constitutional rights.

The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, based in Fredericksburg, Texas, encourages that point of view. Founder Richard Mack, a former sheriff of Apache County, Ariz., speaks regularly at gatherings of Tea Party groups and gun rights organizations.

I find myself reflecting that as I have been around various forms of LEOs & military my whole life, there are "typical" divisions and stereotyped/prejudicial dialogues some LEOs have about others. From beat cops to detectives to uc to fbi to atf to staters to u.s. marhsalls etc, they all get their assigned "faults." It seems a consistent one all over the U.S. is that "sheriffs" are usually regarded as the "buffoons" you really never want to have to work with if you can avoid it. I regretfully say my personal experiences in several states would tend to support such prejudice if I let it.

I think everyone always made an exception for the late Sheriff Taylor.

<more at link>

[Larry]

I get a kick out of people who have this idea that everyone has a Red Dawn fantasy. The 2nd amendment, and the intent behind it, were there so that the government cannot simply use a pen to alter society in a tyrannical way.

Right.

That's why the 2nd Amendment begins with the words "A citizenry possessing more unregistered weaponry than a company of infantry, being necessary to prevent a Muslim from making people buy health insurance, . . . "

Oh wait, it doesn't. It says that it exists because that was the only way the nation could defend itself.

But then, I guess the people who wrote it, didn't posses as clear a knowledge of why they wrote it, as you do.

[twa]

Well sheriffs generally come from a smaller pool, the small pond thing.

even several legislators are making noise on non-enforcement ....sos,different day

[Larry]

You know that several Red Stares are in a competition, right now, to see which one will spend taxpayer dollars to try to have "Obamaban" declared unconstitutional, first.

[Mad Mike]

You're wrong. Red Dawn was an invasion from outside the US. My comment is about the invasion and assault from our own country. Just read the 26 "executive action" items "O" implemented. Words like assess, launch, help, direct, give opportunity, propose, address, clarify etc etc open ended general statements that can be taken to extremes.

If you find that scary... you might be just a *little bit* paranoid. And by "little bit", I mean completely off your rocker.

[twa]

Well ya have the Dem calling to impeach him Larry :pfft: