[TheRealThing]

Show us where they are taking guns from citizens that legally have them?

Get off of MSNBC for a few minutes and you might catch a few things on the news. I saw it on FOX last Friday.

[PaintsvilleTigerfan]

Show us where they are taking guns from citizens that legally have them?

http://capitaltonightny.ynn.com/2013/04/...provision/

[PaintsvilleTigerfan]

Are citizens that are legal to have them, that want them, got them? Are you saying you are ok with a citizen that is a felon, having a gun? Or, a non felon, that has an EPO against them?

Where does it stop?

[TheRealVille]

http://capitaltonightny.ynn.com/2013/04/...provision/

Did they turn the firearms back over, after the mistake? Better yet, did they even get them? Again, are you ok with a felon having a firearm? Are you ok with a person that has an EPO having a firearm? If you are, vote republican, they will assure that will be ok.

[PaintsvilleTigerfan]

As a side note TRV I have personally witnessed a active duty marine get denied for a glock 22. He was able to get it later on after a review by the NICS but that took a pretty fair while, what if he had needed that gun for self defense that night?

[PaintsvilleTigerfan]

Did they turn the firearms back over, after the mistake? Better yet, did they even get them? Again, are you ok with a felon having a firearm? Are you ok with a person that has an EPO having a firearm? If you are, vote republican, they will assure that will be ok.

To me the only people that should be denied are people that have been convicted of violent felonies. Would you be cool if the libs got their wish and all military members that had seen a psychiatrist after returning from deployment weren't allowed guns? See innuendos and broad blanket statements go both ways.

[TheRealVille]

To me the only people that should be denied are people that have been convicted of violent felonies. Would you be cool if the libs got their wish and all military members that had seen a psychiatrist after returning from deployment weren't allowed guns? See innuendos and broad blanket statements go both ways.

It doesn't make a damn what I'm cool with. Vote for whoever you want. If you want zero restrictions on guns, vote republican, they will go your way. I'll go with a more common sense approach, and vote for people that will think about who deserves a weapon.

[PaintsvilleTigerfan]

It doesn't make a damn what I'm cool with. Vote for whoever you want. If you want zero restrictions on guns, vote republican, they will go your way. I'll go with a more common sense approach, and vote for people that will think about who deserves a weapon.

IDT a single republican is on record for no restrictions on guns. The vast majority want the laws kept the way they are.

[PaintsvilleTigerfan]

BTW this isn't a issue that can be readily solved by online debate, in the end neither side is 100% right however it has to bother you how much they are wanting to restrict a constitutional right. Think of it as if the 1st 4th or 5th was being treated this way.

[TheRealVille]

^Your way, that military sniper gets killed anyway. My way, maybe he would still be alive.

[TheRealVille]

No, it doesn't bother me, if they are restricting a right to law abiding citizens, non crazies, and non military weapons.

[TheRealVille]

^Like I said, if you are worried, vote republican. I'll always vote democrat at the state and national level, no matter what you all think. Until your people take my right to vote away, you will have to deal with it.

[TheRealThing]

^Well, so far in just this one thread you've talked yourself out of believing the authorities are seizing guns in New York or that Dianne Feinstein was talking about banning and confiscating guns. You'll not accept a thing you don't want to in spite of any kind of evidence to the contrary.

I call that kind of denial a state of willful ignorance. Speaking of states. Kentucky is a red state and I would think that is much harder for you to deal with, than any of us worrying about how you vote.

[vundy33]

Read her bill shotguns with revolving cylinders are named as being banned. Also a lot of her bill is let's say open for interpretation. And some things just don't make sense a marlin camp 9 carbine is OK but a Hi-Point carbine is not they are the same basic gun, 9mm with 10 round clip.

Clip?! It's a MAGAZINE bro! haha

[vundy33]

^Your way, that military sniper gets killed anyway. My way, maybe he would still be alive.

I am a former Army Sniper...so I'm not getting what you mean with that post man?

No, it doesn't bother me, if they are restricting a right to law abiding citizens, non crazies, and non military weapons.

What do you consider "non military weapons" TRV? An AR-15 or M4? (which is the exact same weapon).

[TheRealVille]

I am a former Army Sniper...so I'm not getting what you mean with that post man?



What do you consider "non military weapons" TRV? An AR-15 or M4? (which is the exact same weapon).

That decorated sniper that got killed by a fellow military guy just a short while back. It was on the news.

I'm not sure Vundy. I' guess I'm mainly talking about magazines that hold massive amounts of shells, or guns that fire with a faster repetition than a regular automatic rifle.

[TheRealVille]

^Well, so far in just this one thread you've talked yourself out of believing the authorities are seizing guns in New York or that Dianne Feinstein was talking about banning and confiscating guns. You'll not accept a thing you don't want to in spite of any kind of evidence to the contrary.

I call that kind of denial a state of willful ignorance. Speaking of states. Kentucky is a red state and I would think that is much harder for you to deal with, than any of us worrying about how you vote.

Show me where they are seizing guns from citizens that are legal to own them. I'm very ok with felons not being allowed to own guns, and people deemed mentally unstable.

[the other guy]

^Like I said, if you are worried, vote republican. I'll always vote democrat at the state and national level, no matter what you all think. Until your people take my right to vote away, you will have to deal with it.

I guess this is the main difference in our political views, I would never limit myself to voting for only one party. I view myself as a libiterian leading conservative and have crossed party lines often in the past. I think the parties nationally have changed so much in the past 40 years that neither party is the party of our fathers.
As an example Hal Rodgers can in no way be called a conservative and I have voted against him the past 4 elections. But his style of spending really looks like a democrat so the one party deal just doesn't work for me.
However I support your right to your views, but as I said the parties have changed so much.

[TheRealThing]

Show me where they are seizing guns from citizens that are legal to own them. I'm very ok with felons not being allowed to own guns, and people deemed mentally unstable.

Do you and vector go to the same shrink? It's been in the news. I wasn't gonna give you the satisfaction of ignoring another link I put up but, Tigerfan very graciously provided one. In fact, you asked to be shown where it was happening at 7:51 and by 7:59 he had already capitulated. I'm going to say he wasn't sitting there ready to punch the "submit reply" button the second you posted. It's reasonable to assume he looked it up sometime (several minutes?) after you asked. So, it took Tigerfan all of 5 minutes to research the topic and post the proof you asked for.

You ignored that of course and asked the same question this morning. You're not receptive to the truth. A fact that is obvious to most who frequent the forum. You could have looked it up yourself, or is Tigerfan just that much swifter than you?

[the other guy]

Clip?! It's a MAGAZINE bro! haha

2
: a device to hold cartridges for charging the magazines of some rifles; also : a magazine from which ammunition is fed into the chamber of a firearm


From websters

[TheRealVille]

Do you and vector go to the same shrink? It's been in the news. I wasn't gonna give you the satisfaction of ignoring another link I put up but, Tigerfan very graciously provided one. In fact, you asked to be shown where it was happening at 7:51 and by 7:59 he had already capitulated. I'm going to say he wasn't sitting there ready to punch the "submit reply" button the second you posted. It's reasonable to assume he looked it up sometime (several minutes?) after you asked. So, it took Tigerfan all of 5 minutes to research the topic and post the proof you asked for.

You ignored that of course and asked the same question this morning. You're not receptive to the truth. A fact that is obvious to most who frequent the forum. You could have looked it up yourself, or is Tigerfan just that much swifter than you?

Tigerfan posted a mistake seizure that was for a man that took anti depressant, but the mistake was figured and, and rectified. Case closed.

[TheRealVille]

The SAFE Act includes the following provisions:[6][7]
Bans possession of any "high-capacity magazines" regardless of when they were made or sold. The maximum capacity for a detachable magazine is reduced from ten rounds to seven. Magazines owned before passage of the SAFE Act able to hold seven to ten rounds can be possessed, but cannot be loaded with more than seven rounds. .22 caliber tubular magazines are exempt from this limit. Previously legal "pre-1994-ban" magazines with a capacity of 30 rounds are not exempt, and must be sold within one year to an out-of-state resident or turned into local authorities. The magazine limit takes effect April 15, 2013.[8] Ten round magazines can still be fully loaded at firing ranges or in shooting competitions. In March 2013, the magazine limit provision was scaled back, allowing ten round magazines to continue to be sold, but still only loaded with seven rounds outside of ranges and competitions.[9]
Ammunition dealers are required to do background checks, similar to those for gun buyers. Dealers are required to report all sales, including amounts, to the state. Internet sales of ammunition are allowed, but the ammunition will have to be shipped to a licensed dealer in New York state for pickup. Ammunition background checks will begin January 15, 2014.[10]
Requires creation of a registry of assault weapons. Those New Yorkers who already own such weapons would be required to register their guns with the state. Registry will begin on April 15, 2013 and must be completed before January 15, 2014.[9]
Requires designated mental health professionals who believe a mental health patient made a credible threat of harming others to report the threat to a mental health director, who would then have to report serious threats to the state Department of Criminal Justice Services. A patient's gun could be taken from him or her.
Stolen guns are required be reported within 24 hours. Failure to report can result in a misdemeanor.
Reduces definition of "assault weapon" from two identified features to one. The sale and/or transfer of newly defined assault weapons is banned within the state, although sales out of state are permitted. Possession of the newly-defined assault weapons is allowed only if they were possessed at the time that the law was passed, and must be registered with the state within one year.
Requires background checks for all gun sales, including by private sellers - except for sales to members of the seller's immediate family. Private sale background checks began March 15, 2013.[10]
Guns must be "safely stored" from any household member who has been convicted of a felony or domestic violence crime, has been involuntarily committed, or is currently under an order of protection.[10] Unsafe storage of assault weapons is a misdemeanor.
Bans the Internet sale of assault weapons.
Increases sentences for gun crimes, including upgrading the offense for taking a gun on school property from a misdemeanor to a felony.[11]
Increases penalties for shooting first responders (Webster provision) to life in prison without parole.
Limits the state records law to protect handgun owners from being identified publicly. However, existing permit holders have to opt into this provision by filing a form within 120 days of the law's enactment.[citation needed] There also may exist issues with respect to "registered" owners in the new regulations vs "permit" holders under previous law.
Requires pistol permit holders or owners of registered assault weapons to have them renewed at least every five years.
[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NY_SAFE_Act

http://www.governor.ny.gov/nysafeact/gun-reform
http://www.governor.ny.gov/nysafeact/gun-owners

The SAFE Act prevents criminals and the dangerously mentally ill from buying guns, cracks down on illegal guns and bans only the most dangerous assault weapons. The SAFE Act protects law- abiding citizens right to bear arms and does not restrict New Yorkers' ability to buy, sell, keep or use their guns.

Here's who can't have guns. And a qualified medical person trained in matters like these are the ones that make the reports. The guy above was mistakingly had guns taken, but the problem was remedied quickly.

A: MHL 9.46 requires mental health professionals to report to their local director of community services (“DCS” or his/her designees when, in their reasonable professional judgment, one of their patients is “likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to self or others.”

I'm fine with these types of people not having guns, BTW. If a person acts like the bold, the Dr. files a report, and it goes on file.

[PaintsvilleTigerfan]

Do you and vector go to the same shrink? It's been in the news. I wasn't gonna give you the satisfaction of ignoring another link I put up but, Tigerfan very graciously provided one. In fact, you asked to be shown where it was happening at 7:51 and by 7:59 he had already capitulated. I'm going to say he wasn't sitting there ready to punch the "submit reply" button the second you posted. It's reasonable to assume he looked it up sometime (several minutes?) after you asked. So, it took Tigerfan all of 5 minutes to research the topic and post the proof you asked for.

You ignored that of course and asked the same question this morning. You're not receptive to the truth. A fact that is obvious to most who frequent the forum. You could have looked it up yourself, or is Tigerfan just that much swifter than you?

One google search lol.

[TheRealVille]

Do you and vector go to the same shrink? It's been in the news. I wasn't gonna give you the satisfaction of ignoring another link I put up but, Tigerfan very graciously provided one. In fact, you asked to be shown where it was happening at 7:51 and by 7:59 he had already capitulated. I'm going to say he wasn't sitting there ready to punch the "submit reply" button the second you posted. It's reasonable to assume he looked it up sometime (several minutes?) after you asked. So, it took Tigerfan all of 5 minutes to research the topic and post the proof you asked for.

You ignored that of course and asked the same question this morning. You're not receptive to the truth. A fact that is obvious to most who frequent the forum. You could have looked it up yourself, or is Tigerfan just that much swifter than you?

As pretty much standard procedure here, the one making the allegations, or statements are generally the ones that are expected to provide links to their claims. If it wasn't Tigerfan, and was in fact you, that made the claim, you should have provided the link.

[PaintsvilleTigerfan]

So we should ban hate groups from freedom of speech because their rhetoric is dangerous? We shouldn't give terrorist suspects due process before blowing them up with a hellfire missile? We should ban cults? Because if we keep infringing the 2a what's to stop us from infringing the rest.

[TheRealThing]

As pretty much standard procedure here, the one making the allegations, or statements are generally the ones that are expected to provide links to their claims. If it wasn't Tigerfan, and was in fact you, that made the claim, you should have provided the link.

I couldn't find it on Mother Jones, LOL. And there were no allegations made, certainly not by me. They seized this guy's guns supposedly by mistake. According to the report, the medical employee involved said the mistake would be made many times over in the future because of the inherent shortsightedness of the reg that covers seizure of weapons.

The point is the authorities have begun to seize guns from people's homes. If I hear you correctly, you're fine with it if they can come up with a plausible reason for doing so. Which, I think shows extreme naivety on your part. You think the federal government would ever run short of creative reasons why?

[TheRealThing]

Tigerfan posted a mistake seizure that was for a man that took anti depressant, but the mistake was figured and, and rectified. Case closed.

How so? I haven't seen where the guy's guns were given back to him. How is the case closed and how has it been rectified? Here's what the court clerk had to say about it, maybe you need to call him and straighten the whole thing out. “Whether it’s the wrong name, or the mental health source was flawed, they need to go through and flow chart this process. After they called, it became clear that the State did not do their job here, and now we all look foolish,” Jacobs said.

“We see more and more provisions within this that are not well thought through because they never talked with anyone on the ground who’s going to be implementing it,” said Jacobs.


It's amateur hour at the white house boys. Liberals are so happy, you gotta take a number to get into la-la land. :biggrin:

[nky]

What about pressure cookers?

[TheRealVille]

How so? I haven't seen where the guy's guns were given back to him. How is the case closed and how has it been rectified? Here's what the court clerk had to say about it, maybe you need to call him and straighten the whole thing out. “Whether it’s the wrong name, or the mental health source was flawed, they need to go through and flow chart this process. After they called, it became clear that the State did not do their job here, and now we all look foolish,” Jacobs said.

“We see more and more provisions within this that are not well thought through because they never talked with anyone on the ground who’s going to be implementing it,” said Jacobs.


It's amateur hour at the white house boys. Liberals are so happy, you gotta take a number to get into la-la land. :biggrin:

I guess it goes without saying, if they realized the mistake, he was free to have his guns back. If they made a mistake, and admitted it, they can't hold his guns. You are stooping to news lows there TRT.

[TheRealThing]

I guess it goes without saying, if they realized the mistake, he was free to have his guns back. If they made a mistake, and admitted it, they can't hold his guns. You are stooping to news lows there TRT.

So, like the rest of us you don't know a thing yet.