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.
The brilliant minds there quickly made it a law that no gun can hold more than 7 rounds. I think they are giving their residents time to sell their high capacity magazines. For guns that have the capacity for more than 7 rounds (most semi-auto handguns) they are saying that you can not put more than 7 rounds in them...even if they have the capacity for 10, 14, 16 rounds, etc.
Now for the "brilliant" part. They were in such a hurry they did not exempt their own law enforcement from this outstanding new law. It is actually against the law for LEOs in New York to have more than 7 rounds in their service weapons. The idiot law makers now have to go back and amend their new law...which they will do and vote on next week.
LOL. Someone should sue the local cities for the police departments being in violation of the law, just for it to hit the media.
The gun on top that you refer to is a Ruger 10/22. It has a detachable magazine and can handle up to 30 rounds.
OK, I stand corrected on that one, but I did say that I didn't have a problem with any of those weapons regardless of how menacing they looked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cape_fisherman
As for limiting a shotgun to three rounds when hunting for waterfowl you don't know why that is.
How did you come to the assumption that I didn't know why they limited the number of shotgun shells you could use for duck hunting though? I just think it is a little funny that you would give the ducks a fighting chance but not give prospective human targets of crazy people the same chance. Yes I know you can't fix "crazy" but you can make it a little more difficult for them to kill many people in a short period of time if they happen to get their hands on a weapon with a high capacity magazine. This is also how I would answer IsNull's question. Maybe someone could tackle the person before they are able to change magazines. Can you "prove" that this could not happen? If it did happen and lives were saved, wouldn't it be worth it? I'm just asking. We know that we all can't agree on everything, but just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong.
And BTW, I don't live in NY anymore and I never entered into a discussion of NY's new laws and I also happen to think they went too far, so I guess we're in agreement on that topic.
Is it possible to fire thirty rounds from the top one without reloading? I guess the statement that they operate exactly the same is not exactly true. I know many people assume that anyone that thinks some limitations on firearms would be acceptable knows nothing about the arguments they make. You know what they say about assuming right? I personally don't have a problem with "assault rifles" or whatever anyone wants to call them, but I don't understand why everyone is OK with it being illegal to have more than three rounds in your shotgun when you hunt waterfowl but it is totally unacceptable to limit the capacity of magazines for any other weapon.
You are only limiting that weapon when it is being used in that particular instance as soon as you leave the duck blind and are not hunting with it anymore you can remove the plug and put as many shells in the magazine as it will hold.....
The other ban makes it illegal to own anything that holds over a certain amount, BIG difference....
One is a regulation for a particular use the other is an outright ban...
I don't feel you should make a regulation based on the possibility that something might happen. Banning 30 round magazines doesn't solve anything. It's even a reach to say it might solve a future issue, but based on history is highly unlikely. Certainly not worth infringing the rights of all American's over. I believe it fails the test.
I don't feel you should make a regulation based on the possibility that something might happen. Banning 30 round magazines doesn't solve anything. It's even a reach to say it might solve a future issue, but based on history is highly unlikely. Certainly not worth infringing the rights of all American's over. I believe it fails the test.
I know we could go back and forth ad nauseum and I would say that we probably should agree to disagree on this but using your argument you could also argue that there shouldn't be laws against driving while intoxicated. Those laws are on the books because if someone drives while intoxicated, there is a possibility that they will be involved in an accident and injure someone else or worse. Again, that is just my opinion and we are both entitled to our own opinions.
My sincerest thoughts, prayers and condolences to all those affected by the recent shootings… I could not imagine being in your shoes…
But why does everyone keep saying it was an AR15 that killed those kids?? That rifle never left the back seat of the car... it was two 9mm HANDGUNS that were deployed in that tragedy, not a semi-auto rifle.
Why? Because the extreme left has always wanted gun control, and in their own words, will never let a tragedy like the recent school shooting go to waste.
AR stands for Armalite, the company that first produced and introduced them. It doesn't stand for Automatic Rifle or Assault Rifle... please quit scaring everyone and get your facts straight… I read this misnomer on nearly every article about the recent shootings.
An Assault Rifle is an Automatic Rifle, an AR15 is neither.
Armalite sold its rights to Colt in 1959, Colt turned the first AR15's into M16 fully auto's... from there the clones started popping up... today we see more brands than you can possibly remember
I learned to shoot, field strip and clean an actual Automatic Rifle many years ago, an M16A1, back then there was no removable anything other than the mag... and the rifles were made fun of because most believed Mattel made the plastics… they didn't but it was the same type of plastic, and plastics were new on guns... “traditional” gun guys now had something to make fun of, they loved their wood stocks…
An AR15 is an extremely fun gun to shoot, although a PITA to clean thoroughly sometimes. It’s more fun than the .22’s I shot as a little kid, but just like a pipe all can be deadly. Will we try to ban pipes next?
I hunt a lot, and coyotes and hogs have become a serious problem in this area. I can think of no better gun than an AR15 with the proper ammo to deal with them. Proper ammo for the task being of importance too in my opinion.
We are not encroaching on these animals, they are encroaching on us and on many native species of plants and animals. Neither the hog nor the coyote are natives in this area, wild hogs aren’t even native to this nation but both are taking it over from coast to coast and causing major environmental damage.
Their populations have got so dense in some places, like Texas, that they are now doing helicopter hunts with AR’s trying their best to thin the herds and still aren’t having a lot of luck because of how fast they reproduce.
An AR15 is merely a tool, as is a hammer, for the right jobs both are appropriate.
I don’t know how these mentally challenged people keep getting ahold of weapons to shoot people, that’s the only loophole we need to close IMHO. Can’t keep criminals from getting guns because they steal them, need more affordable better lockable storage?
But for self-defense a locked up unloaded gun is about as useful as a staple gun without staples, only the first could cost you or a family member their life.
The 2nd Amendment isn’t about hunting rights, nor is it about plinking on your local range. It was wrote to protect the citizens from tyranny, no other reason.
If you want to go back to what we had before we came to these shores, take a boat ride back… I have a hunch you’ll soon see why we left.
The same politicians who want to remove our 2nd Amendment as it was intended are the same people who walk around with their own personal armed bodyguards, why do they think their lives are more important than ours? Why do they want to keep the same rights they want to remove from the rest of us?
Thank you Sheriff Al Cannon for sticking up for our constitutional rights, as well as preserving our hunting capabilities and rights.
I know we could go back and forth ad nauseum and I would say that we probably should agree to disagree on this but using your argument you could also argue that there shouldn't be laws against driving while intoxicated. Those laws are on the books because if someone drives while intoxicated, there is a possibility that they will be involved in an accident and injure someone else or worse. Again, that is just my opinion and we are both entitled to our own opinions.
Your analogy is flawed, if you use his logic it would be like banning alcohol so that we can't drink and drive, hey guess what we tried that once and guess what all the criminals go rich off of it....
Including the Kennedy Family...
You still have not responded to my post but I guess logic wins again
I've owned a Colt AR, Kalashnikov, and SR Mini-14. Still have one of those...I can't imagine anyone ever coming to take it. If that ever happens...it is an example of the tyranny our forefathers thought to protect us from.
Some people are so eager to give up their rights as Americans.
I've heard many arguments on the subject of the 2nd Amendments.
One is that the 2nd Amendment was written when the most advanced weapon was a flintlock, and our forefathers had no idea of the technology available today. These pundits argue that citizens shouldn't be afforded the right to have the same arms as our military. Laws have already been made to keep the average citizen from owning automatic weapons. I will remind anyone making this argument that when the 2nd Amendment was penned that citizens used the same flintlock weapons that the official military used.
I also hear the argument from some that since a citizen can not match the technology of the US Military that there is no reason they need certain weapons that are currently legal. Again, the reason being is that we can't stand up to tyranny anyway. Some say bolt action rifles are all a citizen needs...which would put the citizenry 100 years behind the military (our military hasn't issued bolt action rifles since WWI). The thing these people should keep in mind is that a good portion, if not the majority, of our military should be on the side of the citizenry if our Constitution were to be destroyed. Their oath is not to obey superiors or the POTUS, yet to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. If they follow this oath, the argument that a citizen can't stand up to the government because of military might is null & void. I just pray that if that day were to ever come (and I pray that it never does), those in the military will uphold their oath and remember what those words mean.
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.
