Associated Press/Philip Kamrass, File - FILE - In this Saturday, Jan.
26, 2013 file photo, gun enthusiasts gather during the annual New York
State Arms Collectors Association Albany Gun Show at the Empire StateKey measures of New York's tough new gun law kicked in Monday, with owners of firearms now reclassified as assault weapons required to start registering the firearms and new limits on the number of bullets allowed in magazines.This will be a good test. According to our paranoid and hysterical friends, registration is ALWAYS followed by confiscation. This is a win/win for the gun control side. Either these guys will have to admit they were wrong, or they'll have to lose the guns.
As the new provisions took effect, New York's affiliate of the National Rifle Association planned to file a court request for a federal injunction to immediate halt to the magazine limit.Gov. Andrew Cuomo calls those and other provisions in the state's new gun law common sense while dismissing criticisms he says come from "extreme fringe conservatives" who claim the government has no right to regulate guns."Yes, they are against it, but they are the extremists and the extremists shouldn't win, especially on this issue when it is so important to the majority," Cuomo said in a radio interview last week. "In politics, we have to be willing to take on the extremists, otherwise you will see paralysis."
New York's new gun restrictions, the first in the nation passed following December's massacre at a Connecticut elementary school, limit state gun owners to no more than seven bullets in magazines, except at competitions or firing ranges.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
First: just because there are no plans for confiscation now does not invalidate our argument. We never said that confiscation would immediately follow, just that it is enabled by registries and that it will likely come eventually, just as it historically has whenever firearms were registered. The lag time always varies, but the result is the same. California registered handguns and "assault weapons" a while back, and now there is some talk of confiscating those evil "assault weapons."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_22544460/californias-state-senate-democrats-roll-out-big-gun
Second: You like to tell us all that you don't want to take our guns, you just want to regulate us and "infringe [our] rights just a little bit more." If someone says you want to take some of our guns away from us, you protest that that isn't your bag, and refer us to your wishlist of "reasonable" infringements.
But every once and a while your mask slips and shows what a liar you are. You call this a win/win? So if NY passes a new law and confiscates these guns, you won't consider that to be an abuse of the system or a bridge too far as you've pretended in the past?
No! You call it a winning scenario! Legally purchased property confiscated from its owners because it scares you for anyone but the government to have such power.
And so we see the true face of MikeB. A man who really considers it a win for his side to confiscate our guns. A man who would consider it a win to tell people to turn in their guns, or face a SWAT raid to take them. A man who thinks that something so guaranteed to start civil unrest, if not a civil war, is a Win for his side.
This is the face of a petty little tyrant; the face of evil.
Look on this post of yours Mike, and understand that this is why many formerly law abiding people will now become lawbreakers by hiding their "assault weapons" and not registering them. Sure, many will register them, but many more will be distrustful of you, and of Cuomo and his ilk, knowing that the eventual goal is confiscation--as you admitted here. They will not register their guns, or they will not register all of them.
Remember that, because if you ever go for the big win, you're liable to cause a lot of things to come out of hiding.
In Britain, confiscation took decades. We here must make sure that it never succeeds, even if it's done by slow steps.
DeleteAmen, Brother.
Delete"The lag time always varies, but the result is the same."
DeleteHow long do you think it'll be for New York to begin gathering up all the guns?
I'm not a prophet, so how the hell should I know?
DeleteCould happen after the next mass shooting. Or maybe after someone uses a grandfathered and registered "assault weapon" to commit an especially horrific crime like Newtown, whether it's their gun or one they stole from a friend or relative.
I'd guess it'll be after a while--gun controllers will have to build up a pretty good reserve of political capital before they can go that far, even in New York; they spent most of what they had getting this monstrosity rammed through so quickly. (SO quickly that they're having to fix it to allow the cops to keep playing with their toys.)
My ideological progeny came closer to realizing the goal of an actual ban (and subsequent mandatory confiscation) in Illinois anyway.
DeleteHowever, next time when such prohibitive measures are successful (and the burdensome phenomena of a multi-party State has been overcome), two elements of a successful ban must not be neglected.
1. The allowance for Ex Post Facto prosecutions of existing dissident gun owners.
2. Ban on ammunition. Every round that was possessed by a non-State actor (or another such approved person) would carry a statutory minimum term of imprisonment. Five years perhaps?
At least, for once, you're honest. You admitted your goal--total civilian disarmament.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, have cops yet been exempted from the magazine limitation? They were subject to the ban as well in the original wording of the bill.
I don't think that their exemption has gone through yet, but you can bet that all of the D.A.'s will turn a blind eye to the official scofflaws (and to the bodyguards, diplomatic guards, etc. who violate the 7 round limitation).
DeleteActually, I'm not for total disarmament, as I've told you many times. But, hypothetically, if that were to happen, it would be a win for our side in an overkill kinda way.
DeleteStop trying to catch me, Greg. That's silly. I'm completely straight-up about what I think and what I want. Isn't what I really say bad enough for you? Why do you have to keep insulting me by suggesting that I have a hidden agenda and that I'm lying. I don't and I'm not.
So you would consider the complete shredding of the Second Amendment, complete with SWAT raids to confiscate weapons, a win, only you think it's overkill. Not that it's wrong or anything--just more cure than we need. Kind of a Gun Control Binge--harmless bit of overkill.
DeleteSo, I take it that you wouldn't lobby for that overkill, but since you're chalking it up as a win, you apparently wouldn't oppose it. Ok, so you're not lying and you don't have a secret agenda, but you also don't have a problem with your cohorts passing something that would result in bloody SWAT raids. Gotcha.
Guess you're not a liar, just a minor enemy of freedom who would cheer on the WIN of the major enemies.
No I wouldn't cheer it on and I wouldn't not oppose it. You forget, we're talking about something that't hypothetical in the extreme.
DeleteSo you would oppose it? Did you mean to say that with your Double Negative?
DeleteMikeb, I work to show you the errors in your thinking. I've also shown you time and again how all of your proposals add up to civilian disarmament. The fact that you refuse to see that or to acknowledge it, whichever of those you do, is not my fault.
DeleteLaws change behavior because most want to be law abiding citizens. Bypass these laws, become a criminal and go to jail. Of course if your a wacko who thinks gun confiscation is the future, then maybe you should not own a gun, because your judgment is questionable to start with.
ReplyDeleteAh, yes! We're wackos if we think that confiscations are in the future.
DeleteNevermind that California legislators are considering taking up the registered "assault weapons."
Nevermind that legislators and pundits have been talking about needing to get rid of all "assault weapons" with bans that prohibit continuing possession.
Clearly it could NEVER happen, and Nobody wants it to happen, so the people who think that it COULD happen have paranoia so extreme that we should take their guns from them!
Care to try saying something sensible again?
As for your first comment--yes, that's how laws affect behavior. That's why you don't find loads of illegal, unregistered NFA items--most people either agree with those laws, or don't find that they've infringed rights enough to justify violating them. However, if you push too far and make a law that someone finds not just unjust but intolerable, they start violating the hell out of it (and usually the other laws they thought were unjust but not worth the penalty). Therefore, the tolerance for gun control is not as infinite as you and Mike think it is. There is a threshold where people will start ignoring the restrictions the same way their ancestors ignored Prohibition and various other laws.
You guys love to use words like "confiscations" and "bans" two ways. When it serves your purposes, you mean total and complete, every single gun in civilian hands. Other times, when you want to downplay it you mean only assault weapons.
DeleteExcuse me for talking about "assault weapons" with Anonymous, Mike, but I thought the topic was confiscations of "assault weapons" after their registration. After all, that's what's being registered under this NY law.
DeleteI give you Britain and Australia as two examples of nations that confiscated and banned many types of guns and made legal ownership so difficult that few can complete the process. It can be done. We're here to make sure that it never is done in this country.
DeleteYou, Mikeb, show no inclination to help us in that. Thus it doesn't matter to me where you fall on the gun control spectrum. You're on it, so you contribute to the evil cause, whether you like the ultimate purpose or not.
Registration may greater facilitate confiscation, but the most readily available solution to the problem of armed civilians is the passage of universal background checks, whereupon an executive order, or a legislative act (through budget appropriations) would suspend or prohibit funding to (mandatory) background checks for the transfer of firearms to mere civilians.
DeleteIn concert with a decree requiring the registration of civilian-held arms (therefore providing an enforcement mechanism to a transfer ban), such would serve to prohibit the civilian arms trade, until better measures could be taken to regulate or prohibit the possession and proliferation of arms among mere civilians.
I'll tell you exactly when those guns will be confiscated. When the registered owner dies, they will all be confiscated from their heirs.
ReplyDelete