NY Proposal to Screw Gun Owner's a Little Bit Further

Nessie said:
It was not a knee jerk reaction.

Cumbria did not result in any other ban because we have reached the end of what is achievable
Click to expand...
Like I said, nothing left to do in knee-jerk fashion.
 
Chuck Guiteau said:
I assumed it would take more than that. Legal fees and filing fees for the incorporation. Purchase or lease for the physical location, that sort of thing.
Click to expand...
I'm no expert by any means, but IIRC all that is required is you fill out all the paperwork and pay the fee. Assuming you pass the background check of course.

You don't have to incorporate or anything like that, and I doubt you need a lawyer.
 
WildCat said:
Like I said, nothing left to do in knee-jerk fashion.
Click to expand...


You are just saying knee jerk, but unlike the NY legislation after Sandy Hook, our Firearms Amendment Acts after Hungerford and Dumblane were properly thought through and had widespread support. Something the USA is incapable of.
 
monty1 said:
Point being, any guns that come back from Mexico are of your own making. Mexico wouldn't have a gun problem too if your guns didn't go there. But good for Mexico for getting rid of at least some of them and sending them back to kill people where they belong.
Click to expand...
Well the Mexican police and army like to buy them too, and then many apparently "fall off the truck". And the Mexican police are only too happy to, for a fee, look the other way when guns come across the border. It's said that the police in the border region have to pay bribes to get posted there, because all the smuggling makes it the most lucrative beat in the country.
 
WildCat said:
Because many gun owners feel, and this is confirmed by what is said on this very forum by many posters, that registration is just the first step towards a ban and confiscation. That's how Australia did it after all, and it takes care of the whole "confiscation isn't practical because it would require a house-to-house search" argument. No need to search when you have a handy list of all the guns you want to confiscate. Except the ones held by criminals, of course.
Click to expand...

But Australia wanted confiscation, the US doesn't.

There are almost as many guns in the US as there are people, we obviously like guns. Nearly half of households own guns and many of those who don't own guns still support responsible gun ownership.

So, the fact that a few nuts think we can confiscate all the guns is not really germane to the conversation. We don't let the Apollo Hoaxers determine space policy, do we?
 
Last edited:
So anyway all these gun threads made me want to go shooting, something I haven't done in several years (you have to travel far from Chicago). So today I went to the Cabela's in Hammond (slightly farther but no no tolls and lower taxes) to get some shells for my 12 ga, some .44 mag for my Ruger carbine, and some .22LR for the 10/22.

Now I know there's been a run on ammo lately, but I thought it was mostly media hype. At any rate I figured it would mostly affect 5.56 ammo and such, certainly not something as ubiquitous as .22LR... boy was I ever wrong! No problem with shotgun shells, but not a single box of .22LR in the whole ginormous store. Oddly enough, they had lots of .223 Rem and even some 5.56 as well as .308 and 30/06 and most popular pistol ammo (9mm, .38 Special, .357, .40 S&W, and .45 auto). But not a single box of .44 mag. Then the employees start rolling out stock they just got today, and me and about 10 other people were swarming it hoping there'd be the ammo we were looking for in it. Some got lucky, but not me. No .22LR or .44 mag available. :mad:

And this was a Tuesday just before a snow/ice storm, I can't imagine the madhouse it is on a weekend when they roll out the new stock.
 
WildCat said:
So anyway all these gun threads made me want to go shooting, something I haven't done in several years (you have to travel far from Chicago). So today I went to the Cabela's in Hammond (slightly farther but no no tolls and lower taxes) to get some shells for my 12 ga, some .44 mag for my Ruger carbine, and some .22LR for the 10/22.

Now I know there's been a run on ammo lately, but I thought it was mostly media hype. At any rate I figured it would mostly affect 5.56 ammo and such, certainly not something as ubiquitous as .22LR... boy was I ever wrong! No problem with shotgun shells, but not a single box of .22LR in the whole ginormous store. Oddly enough, they had lots of .223 Rem and even some 5.56 as well as .308 and 30/06 and most popular pistol ammo (9mm, .38 Special, .357, .40 S&W, and .45 auto). But not a single box of .44 mag. Then the employees start rolling out stock they just got today, and me and about 10 other people were swarming it hoping there'd be the ammo we were looking for in it. Some got lucky, but not me. No .22LR or .44 mag available. :mad:

And this was a Tuesday just before a snow/ice storm, I can't imagine the madhouse it is on a weekend when they roll out the new stock.
Click to expand...

If that's a true story and not just made up for the drama and attention getting it invokes, then it's very interesting. What is the reason why people are scrambling for ammunition? Do they think they won't be able to get it in the near future? Is it a kneejerk oppositie reaction for political purposes to show they hate what Obama is trying to do? Do they think they need lots of ammo for a coming war with the government?
 
monty1 said:
If that's a true story and not just made up for the drama and attention getting it invokes, then it's very interesting. What is the reason why people are scrambling for ammunition? Do they think they won't be able to get it in the near future? Is it a kneejerk oppositie reaction for political purposes to show they hate what Obama is trying to do? Do they think they need lots of ammo for a coming war with the government?
Click to expand...

They do say Obama has been a brilliant gun salesman as so many pro-gun people have a knee jerk reaction to as yet undecided, probably never to happen gun control.
 
monty1 said:
If that's a true story and not just made up for the drama and attention getting it invokes, then it's very interesting. What is the reason why people are scrambling for ammunition? Do they think they won't be able to get it in the near future? Is it a kneejerk oppositie reaction for political purposes to show they hate what Obama is trying to do? Do they think they need lots of ammo for a coming war with the government?
Click to expand...

You seem too angry to be from Canadia.
 
Dr. Keith said:
You seem too angry to be from Canadia.
Click to expand...

All right then I confess. And Magz, listen up too. I'm a Russian and I'm a communist spy living in Canada close to the US border because at night I go to the border and watch and listen to what's going on. And then I report back to the KGB or something.
 
WildCat said:
So anyway all these gun threads made me want to go shooting, something I haven't done in several years (you have to travel far from Chicago). So today I went to the Cabela's in Hammond (slightly farther but no no tolls and lower taxes) to get some shells for my 12 ga, some .44 mag for my Ruger carbine, and some .22LR for the 10/22.

Now I know there's been a run on ammo lately, but I thought it was mostly media hype. At any rate I figured it would mostly affect 5.56 ammo and such, certainly not something as ubiquitous as .22LR... boy was I ever wrong! No problem with shotgun shells, but not a single box of .22LR in the whole ginormous store. Oddly enough, they had lots of .223 Rem and even some 5.56 as well as .308 and 30/06 and most popular pistol ammo (9mm, .38 Special, .357, .40 S&W, and .45 auto). But not a single box of .44 mag. Then the employees start rolling out stock they just got today, and me and about 10 other people were swarming it hoping there'd be the ammo we were looking for in it. Some got lucky, but not me. No .22LR or .44 mag available. :mad:

And this was a Tuesday just before a snow/ice storm, I can't imagine the madhouse it is on a weekend when they roll out the new stock.
Click to expand...

Out here on the west coast you can't find 22LR, 9MM, .40 and .45 ACP. Most popular revolver ammo can still be had though. Lots of hoarding going on and when demand becomes critical, enter the gougers. Same thing happened during the last shortage.
 
Nessie said:
Exactly. Though I would like to see a percentage of gun insurance to go into a fund to help pay the costs of innocents who are shot. For example, an uninsured gun is used in a robbery and a passer by gets hit. They can claim from the fund towards medical costs.
Click to expand...

No. My money should not go to help cover for the scumbag's actions. No sir. Nay nay. Nope.

There's already victim compensation funds available through each state.
 
Nessie said:
Car drivers pay part of their insurance to cover criminal deeds, primarily accidents in uninsured cars.
Click to expand...

Well, sort of. In Florida, uninsured motorist coverage is optional. I have it, but many do not. Each state is most likely a little different.

Nessie said:
I think that is reasonable and fairer than non car drivers picking up the bill. Sorry, but I think it is reasonable and fair for the gun makers, dealers and owners to pick up their bill on society, not the non gun owners.
Click to expand...

Oh, so I shouldn't have to pay into the school system, because my children have never attended a public school? And I have never had to call 911, so I shouldn't have to pay for fire services?

We all pay for things we don't necessarily like, or agree with. But, it's a benefit to society as a whole. You may disagree, but that is my opinion. (WRT: guns)

Nessie said:
That the bill is massive and could cost each gun owner a fortune is down to the failure to properly control guns. I think a big bill is a great incentive for those in the gun industry and owners to get their act together.
Click to expand...

I think it not only violates my right to own and possess a firearm, but it makes insurance companies a bunch of money, and does next to nothing.

Nessie said:
Yet since Sandy Hook there has been very little action to make gun control more effective.
Click to expand...

Are you serious? Colorado is already in the process of banning high capactiy magazines. It's going to force a company called Magpul to relocate their entire company, out of the state of Colorado. Oh well. Texas and South Carolina have already offered them great deals to come there.

New York, as you should know, has instituted wide reaching restrictions on guns, incorrectly labeled assault weapons, and high capacity magazines.

But yet, nothing's being done.....:confused:
 
monty1 said:
I've never heard that claim before. I'm going to continue to maintain that the bulk of weapons in Mexico are of US origin until somebody proves otherwise.
Click to expand...

No sir, you back up your claim. You were the one to make the original claim, you back it up.
 
triforcharity said:
Nessie said:
Car drivers pay part of their insurance to cover criminal deeds, primarily accidents in uninsured cars.
Click to expand...

Well, sort of. In Florida, uninsured motorist coverage is optional. I have it, but many do not. Each state is most likely a little different.

Nessie said:
I think that is reasonable and fairer than non car drivers picking up the bill. Sorry, but I think it is reasonable and fair for the gun makers, dealers and owners to pick up their bill on society, not the non gun owners.
Click to expand...

Oh, so I shouldn't have to pay into the school system, because my children have never attended a public school? And I have never had to call 911, so I shouldn't have to pay for fire services?

We all pay for things we don't necessarily like, or agree with. But, it's a benefit to society as a whole. You may disagree, but that is my opinion. (WRT: guns)
Click to expand...
I'd argue that a car is more vital to most people's lifestyles than a gun, and yet states tend to require insurance for cars. Why not for guns? If the risk is low, then the premiums will be low - I have several sports club memberships with indemnity insurance at least a million pounds. They are included in the membership fees which are not onerous.

ETA: And I'd disagree that gun ownership is a public benefit. We have disagreed on the interpretation, but there is significant evidence that for most people the increased risks of keeping a gun in the house far outweigh any reduction in risk from invasions gained in keeping a gun in the house.
 
Last edited:
triforcharity said:
Oh, so I shouldn't have to pay into the school system, because my children have never attended a public school? And I have never had to call 911, so I shouldn't have to pay for fire services?

We all pay for things we don't necessarily like, or agree with. But, it's a benefit to society as a whole. You may disagree, but that is my opinion. (WRT: guns)
Click to expand...
I see guns in general as somewhat like cars in that there is a utility as well as a public cost to the ownership. Some guns might be more like tobacco.
 
jimbob said:
I'd argue that a car is more vital to most people's lifestyles than a gun, and yet states tend to require insurance for cars. Why not for guns? If the risk is low, then the premiums will be low - I have several sports club memberships with indemnity insurance at least a million pounds. They are included in the membership fees which are not onerous.

ETA: And I'd disagree that gun ownership is a public benefit. We have disagreed on the interpretation, but there is significant evidence that for most people the increased risks of keeping a gun in the house far outweigh any reduction in risk from invasions gained in keeping a gun in the house.
Click to expand...

The highlighted isn't necessarily true. This is especially the case where intentional criminal acts are forced to be covered and the limit is so high. Or where there aren't many people to spread the risk over.

Again, this isn't even addressing the constitutionality of such a thing. It fails pretty hard and fast there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom