"NY SAFE" passed in less than 24 hours.

[z31maniac]

Please don't fool yourself into assuming the US military will turn on the people.

Go ahead and ask as many active military people as you can, conduct a mass survey, see if you can present solid reason to believe what you said above.

Who would admit they would in a time of peace/not uprising?

Again, do you think they would voluntarily give up their privileged standing?

I'm not staying they absolutely would, I'm saying if you think they absolutely would not, then your kidding yourself.

[mrsleeve]

^

Many will. MANY More wont. thats why if it comes to something like this, there will be mass infighting in the military 1st.

Read recently somewhere there is a new "litmus" test for upper command staff that has come down from the CiC. Its only one question, "Would you fire on US citizens if ordered too?" take it with a grain of salt, its only really been mentioned on Alternative media as I have seen.

Tin foil hat says there is similar reasoning to account for much of the TOP command staff change ups, work arounds and suspicious deaths as of late as well. But thats all 100% conspiracy theory and to be taken as such. But one has to wonder how you kill your self by shooting your self in the back of head......

[CorvallisBMW]

If you would bother to read anything I post you know the answers to this already. 1 ICBM is not something that is carried or deployed by and individual rifle man now is it, there for out of the context of the 2A and is there for a red herring of an argument.

Regulated in the context of the 2A DOES NOT MEAN Compliance with many arbitrary rules, or playing army with your buddies in the woods on the week ends. It means you should know how to regulate your own weapons IE. load and aim and fire, repair and be well versed in general use and maintenance of your personally owned weapons. The fact that the militias are UNORGANIZED until such time as they are needed, makes your argument a foolish attempt to change the context in which that statement is written

Regulate: to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of <regulate the pressure of a tire> - Websters.

Good try again you fail

Sorry but, no...

How is it that you believe the 2nd amendment to apply on to a "individual rifle man (sic)"? Did Bennie Franklin tell that to you himself? Because it's not contained anywhere in the 2A. All it says is "arms", as in nukes, SAMs, SCUDs, etc. Obviously there is a limit to just which kind of "arms" you believe the 2A to protect, so why is the line drawn on the favorable side of AR-15s but on the unfavorable side of M-16s? Who decided that?

If you truly believe it only applies to bearing rifles and other non-explosive projectile weapons a la the 16th century weapons that existed when it was written, then the 2A only applies to muzzle-loading ball muskets.

Also thank you for proving my point that to own a gun you should be required to undergo training and licencing to prove that you actually do know how to:

... load and aim and fire, repair and be well versed in general use and maintenance of your personally owned weapons.

Bottom line is that the 2A says "a well-regulated militia", it doesn't say "Any Joe six-pack who wants to buy a gun for shits 'n giggles". By your own admission:

The fact that the militias are UNORGANIZED

none of us are part of a well-regulated or organized militia, in that we have no regulations and no militia. The National Guard is a militia, you are not. You belong to no group, posses no standardized training, answer to no commander, participate in no drills/practices/regular meetings or any of the other things that are part of membership in a militia. You have nothing in common with the colonialists of the 16th century, don't fool yourself for even a minute that you do. You are a private citizen who, in your own words, would not follow your Commander-in-Chief if called upon. Kind of rules out the whole "militia" thing, doesn't it?

mi·li·tia [mi-lish-uh]
noun
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.

[vert_this]

I think if they continue to spin like they are, that people that want to keep guns are nothing more than homeland terrorist. Then when some of us gun freaks (or so they say) rise up and start doing stupid shit as they will.

Then U go and ask the same military would they stop that when its kill or be killed. I bet you get a different answer then.

I've already read about them doing field ops and the target is a friggin farmer, the tatget is described as wearing overalls and a john deere hat..terrorist really.

[cuchullainn]

From what I understand, the Dick Act defines the militia as every able bodied man from 18-45. I'm not going to pretend to be knowledgeable about it and don't have time to research it ATM.

I will say, that if less than 1 million owners register their assault weapons, than this SAFE act is a failure. Not to mention, law abiding citizens who don't want to register have only the option of selling their weapon to someone in another state. My gun which I sold about a week ago, for example, is now in Kentucky. So the gun still exists. If guns are the cause of violence, which I understand no one in this forum has tried to argue, how has this reduced violence? It has simply moved it into another state.

I agree something needs to be done to combat gun violence, but Cuomo's intentions with this new legislation seem more political than actually having good intentions.

edit: There is also a provision which will raise a red flag for purchasing "large amount of ammunition". It does not define a large amount. So if I buy 200 rounds, which I could go through in an afternoon of plinking, will I get a knock on the door from the NYSP.

[mrsleeve]

reserved for a latter post that darrin will not read

[tjts1]

I will say, that if less than 1 million owners register their assault weapons, than this SAFE act is a failure. Not to mention, law abiding citizens who don't want to register have only the option of selling their weapon to someone in another state. My gun which I sold about a week ago, for example, is now in Kentucky. So the gun still exists. If guns are the cause of violence, which I understand no one in this forum has tried to argue, how has this reduced violence? It has simply moved it into another state.

The NY legislature only exists to serve the residents of NY state so if you sold your gun out of state the legislation clearly worked, job done. The fact that the gun still exists is a moot point. It no longer exists in NY state.

[cuchullainn]

The NY legislature only exists to serve the residents of NY state so if you sold your gun out of state the legislation clearly worked, job done. The fact that the gun still exists is a moot point. It no longer exists in NY state.

I sold my gun out of state. That's one gun. I own others. I would hardly consider that enough evidence to say the legislation is effective. And it's not a moot point, but you obviously missed my point entirely.

[iamsam]

The NY legislature only exists to serve the residents of NY state so if you sold your gun out of state the legislation clearly worked, job done. The fact that the gun still exists is a moot point. It no longer exists in NY state.

And no one could possibly drive back into the state of NY with said gun in his car?

Also, I hardly think the NY legislature is "serving the residents of NY state" by passing this legislation anyway...

[tjts1]

And no one could possibly drive back into the state of NY with said gun in his car?

Yes thats exactly whats going to happen. A crack pot in Kentucky is going to buy a gun from New York state then drive back to New York to go shoot someone. In your face NY Safe law. That'll teach them to pass anti gun legislation.

Also, I hardly think the NY legislature is "serving the residents of NY state" by passing this legislation anyway...

Well thats just like... your opinion man. Or do we need yet another conspiracy thread?

[BraveUlysses]

Well thats just like... your opinion man. Or do we need yet another conspiracy thread?

You can easily make an argument that NYC exerts undue influence over the entire rest of the state, especially when it comes to passing legislation.

[cuchullainn]

You can easily make an argument that NYC exerts undue influence over the entire rest of the state, especially when it comes to passing legislation.

QFT. Gun laws were already pretty tough in the city before this legislation though.

[iamsam]

Yes thats exactly whats going to happen. A crack pot in Kentucky is going to buy a gun from New York state then drive back to New York to go shoot someone. In your face NY Safe law. That'll teach them to pass anti gun legislation.

...or maybe buy a gun in Kentucky and move to NY state?

[smooth]

Have any statistics to back up your assumption that harsher penalties reduce crimes?

Tougher punishments will not reduce violent crime and there's a slew of evidence to support that your skepticism that they would.

Deterrence theory depends on people making rational calculations about the punishment being worse than the benefit and thereby deciding not to do the action.

Crime, and especially violent street crime however, is often irrational, spur of the moment, heat of passion, or reactive. It's extremely rare for a street criminal to premeditate a violent crime. Most criminals we have arrested and sentenced were either directly under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol or suffering from addiction. Most violent street crime is committed by young males. The areas of the brain responsible for impulse control and rational calculations are not fully developed well after 25-27 years of age (also coinciding with the age [mid 30's] most criminals tend to age out of crime regardless of any kind of punishment or intervention).

Many of our cities where most violent crime occurs and most violent criminals are prevalent also tend to place a high value on prison and prison culture. If prison isn't seen as a punishment, or if it somehow earns someone prestige, or even worse looks like it might be better than current living conditions, clearly it won't be an effective deterrent.

The US already has the most punitive criminal justice system in the world among advanced industrial societies and *also* unfortunately has the most violent crime. We incarcerate our citizens longer, for more crimes than other places, and we take away more of their rights when we're done with them.

The problem with criminal justice system in terms of being too lenient isn't in the sentencing phase. When we catch someone and get them before a judge they tend to go away (9 out of 10 criminal defendants, in fact) and we tend to put them away for a very, very long time relative to other countries that look like ours.

Where the "slippage" occurs, where our system is "broken", is in the reporting and apprehension stages. We don't have very high clearance rates for our crimes. Most crimes go unreported, except for property crimes (people tend to want their stuff back and need police reports to file insurance claims) and murder (hard to ignore bodies).


There are a lot of studies showing that when we lock people up they tend to come out the other end committing more crimes than if we hadn't locked them up at all and the crimes they do commit tend to be more violent. Criminologists call this the "criminogenic" effect of prisons for anyone wanted to look more into that and what explanations we've come up with for why this might be.