Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Only an irresponsible ******* would shoot a hog with a .223. They're way too tough for a "non-lethal" round. Coyotes go down about as easy two legged varmints so that's not so bad.
The passage of New York’s so-called SAFE Act (“Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act of 2013”) drastically changed the landscape for lawful gun owners in the Empire State. Besides new restrictions on commonly owned semi-automatic rifles the state calls “assault weapons,” bans on magazines, and limits on the number of rounds that could be loaded into a gun, the Act imposed a requirement that handgun license holders be “recertified” every five years, with all licensees completing the initial recertification by January 31, 2018. The recertification form requires that the licensee disclose his or her “name, date of birth, gender, race, residential address, social security number, [and] firearms possessed by such license holder,” along with the listed identifying details (make, model, caliber, and serial number). (“Firearm” under the applicable New York law means a handgun or other gun of a size which may be concealed upon the person.)
A failure to recertify operates as an automatic revocation of the license. Possession of a “firearm” without a valid license is a criminal offense, and the revocation makes the person ineligible to apply for or renew a license. Once a license is revoked, state law mandates that every gun owned or possessed by the licensee be “surrendered” to a law enforcement agency. A New York State Police field guide on the SAFE Act, prepared by attorneys for the Division of State Police, unequivocally instructs officers that when “a licensee becomes ineligible to hold a pistol permit, the Safe Act requires the person to surrender all firearms to police, including all rifles and shotguns for which no license or registration is required.” (Emphasis in the original.)
Should the person fail to comply by turning in every gun, the SAFE Act (codified as NY Penal Law § 400.00(11)(c)) not only authorizes but requires that police officers confiscate such property: the guns “shall be removed and declared a nuisance and any police officer or peace officer acting pursuant to his or her special duties is authorized to remove any and all such weapons.”
Maybe he meant "nobody will ever come for your Muskets"....
I've seen plenty of workable solutions and positive input from 2nd Amendment supporters. Allowing teachers to be armed, getting rid of the Gun Free Zones that turn our schools into hunting preserves, better security at schools, etc. All are good ideas and should not only be part of our solution but are basic common sense. The only workable solution coming from the other side of the aisle is better background checks, which are great but not effective enough on their own.
If not having the staff armed, at least have a couple of armed security personnel on sight. And do away with the gun free zone BS.
I work for a major corporation. Unfortunately our campus of 12,000 is a gun free zone, not happy with that but work is work. A couple of years ago there was a stabbing, which was thwarted by someone that did not comply with the gun free campus rules. He saved the victims life. Since then , all our security staff are now armed. If we can do this at work, why not our schools ? I don't understand why anyone would be against this.
Right, wrong or otherwise, Milennials might be the ones to make some measure of Gun Control a reality once they're old enough to vote, boycott, and lobby. It would be fair to say their generation has witnessed enough of these tragedies over the short span of their lives.
There is nothing forcing a 19-year old woman to live on her own without protection. I would live in restricted building, live with family, etc. to mitigate the risk of being the victim of a crime.
If you need 30 shots to do it you have a serious problem and need to spend a lot more time at the range.
Just tell me please in how many gunfights did you participate?
Because I'v been in a lot, most of them in houses, during operation Homat Magen, second Lebanon War, Gaza wars.
And when you fight against few armed people in a house you need sometimes much more than 30 rounds, specially when you don't have grenades.
For example, to evacuate your family from the window against an attacking force you need to fire suppression fire (not sure how is it in English), just to get them out.
You really don't know what are you talking about, huh?
Lets look at countries that successfully have much lower firearm death rates and follow there laws. Guns are not totally banned in the UK or Canada you can still have hunting rifles and the like its just more restrictive and as such it is much safer place to live. Of course those countries don't have a reactionary class that fights any and all change so it may be a tall order for the US to implement sane laws.
If anyone can pretty much buy a gun and they aren't enforced they are worse than useless.
Do you mean criminals buying them illegally? Yes, that happens a lot, but it is up to the police to stop them. That is not the fault of the legal gun owner.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
