NY to make owning buffalo rifles a felony.

[Ranb]

Bill A04471
http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A04471&sh=t

New York State wants to make owning fifty caliber rifles a felony. It does not matter what kind of rifle it is. If it has a bore of 1/2 inch or greater, then they "have no acceptable purpose" and "pose such an imminent threat and danger to the safety and security of the people of this state that it is necessary to ban the possession and use of such weapons."

Examples of the fine rifles they want to ban are here, http://www.shilohrifle.com/ .

The ban will also include more powerful rifles such as the 50 BMG, the old 50-70, and any other center fire 50 caliber rifle. The 12 gauge shotgun will not be spared either, if the owner has attached a rifled slug barrel. While the list of fifty caliber rifles is long, what they all have in common is that they have never been used in violent crime in New York State.

People will say that something has to be done about terrorists in this country, but why would a terrorist want to use small rifles like these when much better weapons such as bombs have proven to be much more terrifying?

Ranb

[CFLarsen]

What would be an acceptable purpose for such a weapon?

[shecky]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
What would be an acceptable purpose for such a weapon?

Shooting buffalo, of course.

[Phrost]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
What would be an acceptable purpose for such a weapon?

Killing Buffalo, obviously.

What about Revolutionary War reenactors/history buffs? Black powder shooters?

Do you feel there is an acceptable purpose for any firearm?

[aerocontrols]

If there was a rifle designed to kill Albanies they would probably ban that, too.

[Donks]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
What would be an acceptable purpose for such a weapon?
Target practice? Or does the purpose have to be acceptable to you?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Phrost
Killing Buffalo, obviously.

Well, that should limit the use considerably....

Originally posted by Phrost
What about Revolutionary War reenactors/history buffs? Black powder shooters?

That's hardly a weapon like the one being discussed here.

Originally posted by Phrost
Do you feel there is an acceptable purpose for any firearm?

In the hands of hunters, soldiers and police officers, yes.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Donks
Target practice? Or does the purpose have to be acceptable to you?

"Target practice"? If you want to see if you can hit something from a distance, throw a beer can.

[Donks]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
"Target practice"? If you want to see if you can hit something from a distance, throw a beer can.
I can't throw that far. Plus, what's wrong with target practice?

[Ravenwood]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Well, that should limit the use considerably....



That's hardly a weapon like the one being discussed here.





Actually, the way the law is worded, all of my pre-1650 handgonnes & matchlocks would be illegal, not too mention my swivel gun & falconet. Makes being a re-enactor kinda tough, not to mention that there is no record of anyone ever shot in a crime (or accident, or even on purpose, for that matter) her in the USA with one of my weapons...

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Donks
I can't throw that far. Plus, what's wrong with target practice?

What, exactly, are you practicing for?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Ravenwood
Actually, the way the law is worded, all of my pre-1650 handgonnes & matchlocks would be illegal, not too mention my swivel gun & falconet. Makes being a re-enactor kinda tough, not to mention that there is no record of anyone ever shot in a crime (or accident, or even on purpose, for that matter) her in the USA with one of my weapons...

Then lobby to get the law changed. Use your influence as a voter.

[Donks]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
What, exactly, are you practicing for?
For the heck of it. There are people who enjoy shooting rifles at paper targets, you know? There is nothing illegal in it. Why should there be?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Donks
For the heck of it. There are people who enjoy shooting rifles at paper targets, you know? There is nothing illegal in it. Why should there be?

Not much of a purpose. Use a beer can instead.

[Donks]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Not much of a purpose. Use a beer can instead.
So do you have veto power over everyone's hobbies or something?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ravenwood
...not to mention that there is no record of anyone ever shot in a crime (or accident, or even on purpose, for that matter) her in the USA with one of my weapons... Yeah, this is so typical of feel good vacuous legislation. Never mind that it would A.) Solve nothing and B.) Put a burden on honest citizens. Another example of tax dollars being thrown down a rat hole to screw you for no good reason.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Then lobby to get the law changed. Use your influence as a voter. Right, the majority gets to decide what hobbies the minority can enjoy without cause or reason. Good one Larsen.

[Ed]

The proposed law exempts non-cartridge BP or Pyrodex weapons. It lumps them together with machineguns and "assult" rifles.

It also pays the owner up to $8,500 bucks/firearm.

All in all a piece of woo-woo legislation fraught with logical errors that any self respecting sceptic should be all over.

[davefoc]

I wonder why there hasn't been more crazies that use some of the large caliber rifles for terrorizing people.

It seems like a weapon that has the long range of a large caliber sniper rifle would have been used by somebody in a way that the two guys terrorized the eastern US a few years ago.

I guess the answer is that the vast majority of people using guns in the commision of a crime are trying to steal something and just terrorizing random folks from a long way off isn't that common a goal. Plus many terrorists seem to prefer bombs.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by RandFan
Right, the majority gets to decide what hobbies the minority can enjoy without cause or reason. Good one Larsen.

Without cause or reason? Not true.

You may not agree with the majority, but that's your right.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
What would be an acceptable purpose for such a weapon? Any purpose the owner sees fit, that does not violate the rights of someone else.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Donks
So do you have veto power over everyone's hobbies or something?

We are not just talking about hobbies, but dangerous "hobbies".

You are free to disagree with the majority. If you don't like the democratic process, then move to a country that doesn't have it. Or lobby to change your society, so it only caters to your wishes.

[Snide]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Not much of a purpose. Use a beer can instead. I know of people who visit the golf practice ranges, but do not play golf. Guess they're out of luck.

And, yes, it too is dangerous. Many balls go over the net endagering golfers on adjacent fairways at these places.

[Donks]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
We are not just talking about hobbies, but dangerous "hobbies".

You are free to disagree with the majority. If you don't like the democratic process, then move to a country that doesn't have it. Or lobby to change your society, so it only caters to your wishes.
Is rock climbing dangerous? How about sky diving? Is driving a car to work every day dangerous? Are they illegal?

Is your only argument an appeal to popularity? The US, and countries modeled after the US like my own, are not democracies. They are republics. The idea being that the majority can't screw over the minority just because they feel like it.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
What would be an acceptable purpose for such a weapon?

For guys with small penises to prove their manhood? :p

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Any purpose the owner sees fit, that does not violate the rights of someone else.

How do you guarantee that?

[Ranb]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
We are not just talking about hobbies, but dangerous "hobbies"...........

You should be saying potentially dangerous hobbies. Or do you have any evidence that fifty caliber rifles have been used to injure or kill anyone in the state of New York? Surely you do not feel that these rifles present an imminent threat and danger to the safety and security of the people New York.

Don't you think there should be a good reason for making possession of certain single shot hunting rifles a felony other than the over active imagination of lawmakers with guns on their brains?

Ranb

[Ed]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
How do you guarantee that?

Risk is part of life, no guarentees.

I wonder how many would like to live in a societyy that really tries to reduce risk to zero.

[Donks]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Originally posted by Diogenes
Any purpose the owner sees fit, that does not violate the rights of someone else.
How do you guarantee that?
How do you guarantee that a car, a hammer, or a rock won't be used to violate the rights of someone else? What kind of an argument is that?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
How do you guarantee that? Why would I want to?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Ranb
You should be saying potentially dangerous hobbies.

No. Not "potentially". We know that guns are dangerous. They are built to be dangerous.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Ed
Risk is part of life, no guarentees.

I wonder how many would like to live in a societyy that really tries to reduce risk to zero.

Risk is, indeed, a part of life. There is, however, no need to increase the risk unnecessarily.

We don't allow nukes for everyone for the very same reason.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Donks
How do you guarantee that a car, a hammer, or a rock won't be used to violate the rights of someone else? What kind of an argument is that?

Are cars, hammers or rocks designed to kill?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Why would I want to?

Because you are the one who wants something that is a danger to me. Therefore, it is your responsibility.

[LW]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Are cars, hammers or rocks designed to kill?

Hammer (http://www.reliks.com/merchant.ihtml?pid=2085&step=4).

Rocks (http://www.mayapaleolithicmuseum.org/weapons.htm)

Cars (http://www.battlefield.ru/ba64.html)

"You can only fight strawmen with strawmen."

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Because you are the one who wants something that is a danger to me. Therefore, it is your responsibility. There is no basis to believe it is a danger to you.

As mentioned before, by your reasoning, why don't we outlaw everything that is a danger to you.

[Ranb]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
No. Not "potentially". We know that guns are dangerous. They are built to be dangerous.

You are twisting your own words to suit your argument. You said it was a dangerous hobby. Most people can recognize the difference between a hobby (recreational shooting) and a job (police, soldier). Maybe you should give it a try.

Sport shooting by its very nature is safe. The sportsman is not trying to kill a human target or intentionally aiming at a person. Recreational shooting has been demonstrated to be a very safe sport. In fact, it is much safer than many other hobbies or sports that Americans spend their time on. Do Danish shooters have problems keeping their bullets out of bystanders? It is not much of a problem at the rifle range here in the USA. Since 50 caliber rifles are not used in crime at all in NY, why should owning them for recreation be an issue? Surely your government isn't all for banning the guns that are not used in crime where you live. Or am I wrong?

Ranb

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by LW
Hammer (http://www.reliks.com/merchant.ihtml?pid=2085&step=4).

Rocks (http://www.mayapaleolithicmuseum.org/weapons.htm)

Cars (http://www.battlefield.ru/ba64.html)

"You can only fight strawmen with strawmen."

I am not the one who brought them up.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Diogenes
There is no basis to believe it is a danger to you.

It is ludicrous to claim that guns are neither dangerous or built to be dangerous. That is their purpose.

Originally posted by Diogenes
As mentioned before, by your reasoning, why don't we outlaw everything that is a danger to you.

Why should your right to have fun with a deadly weapon supersede my right to a safer life?

[Donks]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I am not the one who brought them up.
No. I am. You asked if it could be guaranteed that the rights of others wouldn't be violated with the rifles. Why do you place such a restriction only on rifles? Because they are "designed to kill"?

[Ranb]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
.......Why should your right to have fun with a deadly weapon supersede my right to a safer life?

New Yorkers owning and shooting 50 caliber rifles does not make your life less safe. Can you say exactly why it might?

Ranb

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Ranb
New Yorkers owning and shooting 50 caliber rifles does not make your life less safe. Can you say exactly why it might?

Because guns make my life dangerous.

Why should your right to have fun with a deadly weapon supersede my right to a safer life?

[Bikewer]

I'm sure the essential "purpose" of this legislation (proposed elsewhere as well) is to limit access to contemporary weapons chambered for the .50 BMG cartridge. (Browning Machine Gun)
This is a potent round, and quite capable of penetrating automobiles and aircraft at long range. As such, it could concievably be used by a terrorist (or lunatic...) to target aircraft about to take off or somesuch.

I suppose some brain-trust in the legislature decided they had to include a wide variety of .50 weapons to cover all bases, and not be accused of singling out a particular product.
Never mind that allmost all the other rounds listed are antiques, and used in antique (or reproduction) weapons.

Never mind that I don't believe that anyone has been shot with a Sharps .50 since the late 1800s or so..

All of these antique weapons are large, heavy, expensive single-shots, not exactly the thing a terrorist would want to lug around. Further, the ballistics on the old rounds are poor compared to modern weapons, and have very steep trajectories that require long "fold-up" rear sights.

Then, we might consider that there are a variety of weapons available in "almost' .50 caliber, which would still be legal. For instance, the still-popular 45-70, with very similar ballistics to the .50-70. There are also modern "almost" rounds in .40+ calibers which would presumably be legal as well.

Finally, I'd note that contemporary military snipers get along just fine with standard and completely legal rounds like the 7.62 NATO (.308 Winchester) and the 30-06, and are able to get consistent kills at 2000 yards.


The civilian uses for these weapons, especially the antiques, are many. There is a large and growing reinactment scene, of course, which usually includes target competition as part of the weekend.
Then there's the also-growing "Cowboy Action Shooting" competition, which generally includes long-range "buffalo" rifle shooting.
Many shooting enthusiasts enjoy owning, handling, and shooting the weapons that were historically important as well.
As there is essentially no history of criminal usage, outlawing them seems rather silly.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Donks
No. I am. You asked if it could be guaranteed that the rights of others wouldn't be violated with the rifles. Why do you place such a restriction only on rifles? Because they are "designed to kill"?

Guns. Firearms. Designed to kill.

Why should your right to have fun with a deadly weapon supersede my right to a safer life?

[Ed]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Why should your right to have fun with a deadly weapon supersede my right to a safer life?

I think that you must demonstrate that there is a real risk. After all, the same argument could be made about virtually anything.

Of course, potentially, something could happen. As it could with any dangerous implement. I think that the argument about firearms being designed to kill is a red herring, the fact is that they are simply dangerous as so many things are.

It is interesting to consider the "nature" of something as a reason for legislation. One could argue that the nature of drugs is to impair one's perception of reality and that one could, therefore be a risk to others. By that logic highly restrictive drug laws would be supportable.

The nature of, and basis for the design of every tool would appear to be suspect. Saws are designed to cut, ruthlessly and efficiently. By the logic of your argument what they are designed to cut (as well as the personal responsibility of the user) are subsideary to the fact that this "cutting" nature might cause harm to you or others.

Wasn't there a sterotypical Italian gangster type on Monty Python that demonstrated the inherent dangers of otherwise innocuous objects?

I fear that Voltaire was right again. "To the wicked everything serves as pretext".

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Ed
I think that you must demonstrate that there is a real risk.

Guns are built to kill. At a distance. It's much safer for you to shoot me at 20 meters than it is for you to go mano-amano with me.

That's their whole reason for existing. That's the reason they were invented.

So let's skip that whole discussion. It is ludicrous.

[Donks]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Guns. Firearms. Designed to kill.

Why should your right to have fun with a deadly weapon supersede my right to a safer life?
In the NY Penal Code you can find menacing in the second degree:
A person is guilty of menacing in the second degree when:

1. He or she intentionally places or attempts to place another person in reasonable fear of physical injury, serious physical injury or death by displaying a deadly weapon, dangerous instrument or what appears to be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm; or

2. He or she repeatedly follows a person or engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts over a period of time intentionally placing or attempting to place another person in reasonable fear of physical injury, serious physical injury or death; or

3. He or she commits the crime of menacing in the third degree in violation of that part of a duly served order of protection, or such order which the defendant has actual knowledge of because he or she was present in court when such order was issued, pursuant to article eight of the family court act, section 530.12 of the criminal procedure law, or an order of protection issued by a court of competent jurisdiction in another state, territorial or tribal jurisdiction, which directed the respondent or defendant to stay away from the person or persons on whose behalf the order was issued.

Menacing in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.
How is the act of owning weapons placing you in "reasonable fear of physical injury"?

[Cleon]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Guns are built to kill. At a distance. It's much safer for you to shoot me at 20 meters than it is for you to go mano-amano with me.

That is, of course, assuming that Ed is itching to shoot you.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Cleon
That is, of course, assuming that Ed is itching to shoot you.

No danger there. I am pretty much into collecting now with infrequent forays to a range to kill paper.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Donks
How is the act of owning weapons placing you in "reasonable fear of physical injury"?

The guns are built for killing at a distance.

[Donks]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
The guns are built for killing at a distance.
I guess we disagree on what is reasonable fear.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Cleon
That is, of course, assuming that Ed is itching to shoot you.

I can't take that chance. Why should I?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Donks
I guess we disagree on what is reasonable fear.

Fine with me. Should that mean my rights are suppressed?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
It is ludicrous to claim that guns are neither dangerous or built to be dangerous. That is their purpose.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Diogenes
As mentioned before, by your reasoning, why don't we outlaw everything that is a danger to you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Why should your right to have fun with a deadly weapon supersede my right to a safer life? You didn't answer the question..

How about a poll on who is being ludicrous here? ( rhetoric, not an appeal to popularity )

[Donks]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Fine with me. Should that mean my rights are suppressed?
Not at all. You are free to file police reports against every legal gun owner in the planet, if you like. There may be some jursidicion that shares your definition of reasonable fear.

[LW]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I can't take that chance. Why should I?

And my opinion is that you shouldn't be allowed to carry a ball-point pen or any other potential weapon to an airplane. And that 'you' is not the general 'you' but you specifically.

After all, you have publicly stated that you will attack and kill anyone who you see carrying a gun in the plane. You are a threat to safety of other passengers. You may say that you won't make mistakes and you wouldn't confuse, say, a cellular phone with a gun but why should we take that chance?

[Cleon]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I can't take that chance. Why should I?

You take the chance every day. Every time you walk down the street you take the chance that some lunatic hasn't lost his mind and wants to wipe you off the sidewalk. Every time you get in an airplane you take the chance that the pilot hasn't gotten suicidally depressed. You take the chance that somebody with a bow and arrow hasn't decided to go on a killing spree.

If you run your life on the assumption that other people are out to kill you, it might be time for a vacation. At the very least.

[Bob Klase]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
The guns are built for killing at a distance.

Better outlaw bows and arrows, and knives- particularily throwing knives.

Fine with me. Should that mean my rights are suppressed?

Why not? Why should you be the only one that decides what rights are supressed?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Diogenes
You didn't answer the question..

I am not talking about outlawing anything that is a danger to me. I am asking why my rights to a safer life are suppressed because people want to play with guns?

I answered your question. Now, answer mine.

Originally posted by Diogenes
How about a poll on who is being ludicrous here? ( rhetoric, not an appeal to popularity )

If you want to argue that guns were not invented to kill at a distance, then fine with me. Just don't expect me to take you seriously.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Donks
Not at all. You are free to file police reports against every legal gun owner in the planet, if you like. There may be some jursidicion that shares your definition of reasonable fear.

Why should I take action? I am not the one jeopardizing other people's lives.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Why should I take action? I am not the one jeopardizing other people's lives.

Posession of a firearm does not jeapordize other people's lives. (Mis)use of that firearm does.

[Donks]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Why should I take action? I am not the one jeopardizing other people's lives.
No. You're the one that thinks his life is being jeopardized.

[Ravenwood]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Why should I take action? I am not the one jeopardizing other people's lives.
Yet you say that I should take action? who am I jeopardizing with my hobby? Last time I checked, the 1" bore Handgonne was not on the list of criminals favorite weapons, in fact I'm almost positive that the last casualty from a handgonne in the americas & western europe was well over a couple of centuries ago...

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by LW
And my opinion is that you shouldn't be allowed to carry a ball-point pen or any other potential weapon to an airplane. And that 'you' is not the general 'you' but you specifically.

Ball-point pens are not built to kill people.

Originally posted by LW
After all, you have publicly stated that you will attack and kill anyone who you see carrying a gun in the plane. You are a threat to safety of other passengers. You may say that you won't make mistakes and you wouldn't confuse, say, a cellular phone with a gun but why should we take that chance?

The issue was that there was a gun. But, that is another discussion in another thread.

[Ed]

You really cannot legislate over irrational fears. The results could be very troubling.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Cleon
You take the chance every day. Every time you walk down the street you take the chance that some lunatic hasn't lost his mind and wants to wipe you off the sidewalk. Every time you get in an airplane you take the chance that the pilot hasn't gotten suicidally depressed. You take the chance that somebody with a bow and arrow hasn't decided to go on a killing spree.

If you run your life on the assumption that other people are out to kill you, it might be time for a vacation. At the very least.

Why should I run an increased risk?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Bob Klase
Why not? Why should you be the only one that decides what rights are supressed?

I am not. Answer the question.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Cleon
Posession of a firearm does not jeapordize other people's lives.

We disagree. Should my rights be suppressed because we disagree?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Without cause or reason? Not true. Oh cool, and here I was thinking the legislations was woo-woo BS. Now, please let us in on the cause and reason.

You may not agree with the majority, but that's your right. How wonderfully kind of you. I guess this is kind of a difficult concept for you but America is based in part on the concept that majority can't lord over the minority.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Donks
No. You're the one that thinks his life is being jeopardized.

No. My life is being jeopardized. Why should my rights be suppressed because of that?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
We are not just talking about hobbies, but dangerous "hobbies". Dangerous or "potentially" dangerous?

You are free to disagree with the majority. If you don't like the democratic process, then move to a country that doesn't have it. Or lobby to change your society, so it only caters to your wishes. Ahh... oppression of the majority against the minority justified by democracy. Can you say "fascist"? Ever hear of minority rights?

[Cleon]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
We disagree. Should my rights be suppressed because we disagree?

At the risk of sounding like shanek, you're the one who wants to suppress my rights. In this case, my right to own a firearm.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


If you want to argue that guns were not invented to kill at a distance, then fine with me. Just don't expect me to take you seriously. That is not the question ( it is your derailment ).. The question is why should it be a felony to own a 50 caliber rifle/gun?

To ' make CFL feel safe ' is a woo position..

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by RandFan
Oh cool, and here I was thinking the legislations was woo-woo BS. Now, please let us in on the cause and reason.

I have already made that clear: To argue that guns are not built to kill is ludicrous.

Originally posted by RandFan
How wonderfully kind of you. I guess this is kind of a difficult concept for you but America is based in part on the concept that majority can't lord over the minority.

Bull. If that was the case, no laws would ever be passed.

Can you tell me why my rights - as a minority - should be suppressed because gun owners/proponents - a majority - want it their way?

It seems that nobody else can.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Why should your right to have fun with a deadly weapon supersede my right to a safer life? Do you have a single piece of evidence that a gun significantly makes your life less safe? Just because a gun can be dangerous doesn't mean that it will be dangerous. We have been over this ground before but you seem to lack the ability to learn. Just because you don't like one of the potential uses of something doesn't give you the right to regulate that thing.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
No. My life is being jeopardized. Why should my rights be suppressed because of that?

Explain to me, if you please, how my owning a 9mm jeapordizes your life. I have no desire, need, temptation, or cause to shoot you.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Ed
You really cannot legislate over irrational fears. The results could be very troubling.

Please don't tell me that my fears are irrational. They are very rational.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Please don't tell me that my fears are irrational. They are very rational.

You're saying that my owning a gun would jeapordize your life. That's not rational.

[Donks]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
No. My life is being jeopardized. Why should my rights be suppressed because of that?
You have yet to show how your life is being jeopardized. Why should people lose some of their rights because of your perceived risk?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Cleon
At the risk of sounding like shanek, you're the one who wants to suppress my rights. In this case, my right to own a firearm.

So, the right to own a gun supersedes everybody elses rights?

[Richard G]

"Chicken little sky is falling" paranoia over .50 cals is pure emotionaly based crap.

These are still legal.
http://www.fulton-armory.com/Mark14-With-Sling-600_50.jpg

But I own and operate one of these:
http://www.fulton-armory.com/FA00101-RightSide-600_50.jpg

My advice, flee New York to someplace where the air is freeer.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
So, the right to own a gun supersedes everybody elses rights?

Explain to me how my owning a gun infringes on anyone else's rights.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Diogenes
That is not the question ( it is your derailment ).. The question is why should it be a felony to own a 50 caliber rifle/gun?

You don't decide what questions I ask.

Originally posted by Diogenes
To ' make CFL feel safe ' is a woo position..

So, I am now a "woo" because I think differently than a gun proponent. Great.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Guns are built to kill. At a distance. It's much safer for you to shoot me at 20 meters than it is for you to go mano-amano with me.

That's their whole reason for existing. That's the reason they were invented.

So let's skip that whole discussion. It is ludicrous. Poor logic.

So what if it is able to kill at a distance? Are they currently used to kill people at a distance?

By all means run away. You do that when you are unable to defend your position.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by RandFan
Do you have a single piece of evidence that a gun significantly makes your life less safe? Just because a gun can be dangerous doesn't mean that it will be dangerous. We have been over this ground before but you seem to lack the ability to learn. Just because you don't like one of the potential uses of something doesn't give you the right to regulate that thing.

Yes, we've been over this before. If you are not convinced, then you are not convinced.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Cleon
You're saying that my owning a gun would jeapordize your life. That's not rational.

I refer you to the statistics. I run a much higher risk of being shot in the US than in Denmark.

That's rational.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I have already made that clear: To argue that guns are not built to kill is ludicrous. Non responsive, non sequitur straw man.

That they can kill doesn't mean that anyone's life is in any significant danger. Again do you have any evidence?

Bull. If that was the case, no laws would ever be passed. Not true at all. Minority rights do not interfere with ALL laws.

Can you tell me why my rights - as a minority - should be suppressed because gun owners/proponents - a majority - want it their way? In the case of NY it is the gun proponents that are the minority. Did you really not know that?

[Tony]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Ball-point pens are not built to kill people.


Whether something is built to kill people (in the case of guns it's arguable) is irrelevant to your point. You say the danger of guns makes your life less safe. It follows that other dangerous tools, instruments and objects, which can be used to kill, are just as much a threat to you being able to live a safe life as guns. Why are you ignoring those other dangers?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Please don't tell me that my fears are irrational. They are very rational. Rational based upon what?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Richard G
"Chicken little sky is falling" paranoia over .50 cals is pure emotionaly based crap.

These are still legal.
http://www.fulton-armory.com/Mark14-With-Sling-600_50.jpg

But I own and operate one of these:
http://www.fulton-armory.com/FA00101-RightSide-600_50.jpg

My advice, flee New York to someplace where the air is freeer.

Shut-up hypocrite.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I refer you to the statistics. I run a much higher risk of being shot in the US than in Denmark.

That's rational.

That's fine and dandy, but that doesn't explain why my owning a gun would jeapordize your life.

[Ed]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Please don't tell me that my fears are irrational. They are very rational.


Then I am sure that you have evidence that these weapons are a threat. incidents, woundings, people killed and so on.

[Ranb]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
....Can you tell me why my rights - as a minority - should be suppressed because gun owners/proponents - a majority - want it their way?

It seems that nobody else can.

I do not believe your rights are being suppressed because civilian ownership of 50 caliber rifles in the USA has never been demonstrated to cause violent crime. We can not lower the risk past zero, so how can you say allowing civilian ownership of fifty caliber rifles makes it dangerous for you to visit the USA? You keep saying we (50 cal gun owners) are a threat to your safety, but it is a lie demonstrated by the gun's safety record for the last 70 years. You sound irrational. Your replies to these posts are rather pitiful.

Ranb

[CFLarsen]

I don't see anyone address my point.

What I do see is a quite a lot of people who insist that their rights supercedes everybody elses. Especially if those rights concerns guns.

Thank you for your time.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
So, the right to own a gun supersedes everybody elses rights? What rights are being superseded? You have yet to demonstrate that anyone's life is at danger. I'm guessing that no such evidence will be forthcoming, right? Your evidence is based on emotion and specious argument.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I don't see anyone address my point.

What I do see is a quite a lot of people who insist that their rights supercedes everybody elses. Especially if those rights concerns guns.

Thank you for your time.

You haven't answered my question, which I've asked several times and goes to the very heart of your point: How does my owning a gun supercede your rights or put your life in danger?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Yes, we've been over this before. If you are not convinced, then you are not convinced. And if you have NO evidence then you have NO evidence!

[RandFan]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I don't see anyone address my point. You don't have a point to address.

What I do see is a quite a lot of people who insist that their rights supercedes everybody elses. NO! Now listen closely. Absent any danger from my hobby you have NO right to stop that hobby. I know that is a difficult concept for you to understand but that is just the way it is. Because you irrationally fear something does not give you the right to act on that irrational fear.

Especially if those rights concerns guns.

Thank you for your time. We do our best to educate so we are happy to give it up. We sacrifice our time in the hopes that some day you will either get it or provide evidence that your fears are irrational.

[apoger]

Why should I run an increased risk?

A multitude of human activities increase the risk that you may be harmed. It is irrational to expect humankind to stop all action that may carry risk. Instead we use reason to weigh the costs versus the benefits of our actions.

It is certainly true that one function of guns is to kill other humans. It is also true that guns are used for recreation. When evaluating the cost/benefit ratio of firearms, we must take into account how they are used in the local context. In the area in question it seems that the firearms in question are used exclusively for recreation. Restricting use in this context seems pointless, as it will affect the rights of recreational gun owners, while doing nothing to restrict criminal action nor increase safety.

Of course if you can provide evidence that these weapons are misused to the extent that they must be restricted to keep the populace safe, I would be delighted to examine your findings. Until then all you have is an unfounded fear that the tool may be misused.

[Jas]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I have already made that clear: To argue that guns are not built to kill is ludicrous.

But the majority are intended to kill animals. I do have a right to sustain myself at least partially for hunting (and yes, I realize that not everyone uses guns for this).

My bow is also built to kill. Do you think they should be banned as well?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Jas
But the majority are intended to kill animals. I do have a right to sustain myself at least partially for hunting (and yes, I realize that not everyone uses guns for this).



Interesting point.

Of all of the relatively common rifle cartridges how many were designed specifically to kill humans? The remainer are, obviously hunting or target rounds.

.30-06
.223
7.62
.30 Carbine

I would guess that these constitute a small minority of civillion production and weapon chamberings.

So really very few cartridge/firearm combinations were designed to be lethal to humans but many were designed to be lethal to animals and paper.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Why should I run an increased risk?
OK, what is your baseline for an acceptable risk? ("Increased" over what exactly) And then show how a type of gun that hasn't killed anyone ever in New York increases risk.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
So, the right to own a gun supersedes everybody elses rights?
Their rights to what, exactly? Please keep your answer confined to the topic at hand - .50 caliber rifles.

[Richard G]

What I do see is a quite a lot of people who insist that their rights supercedes everybody elses. Especially if those rights concerns guns.

They don't. And here is an example for you...a lesson in U.S. Constitutional law.

I have the right to own, and carry, a firearm. That is protected by the U.S. Constitution, and also my States Constitution.

Private property rights are also protected, under both of the forementioned Constitutions.

My right to carry a firearm cannot supercede or violate your private property rights. Therefore, there are provisions in the law that say I cannot carry a firearm onto your property, or the property of any private buisness, without the permission of the landowner.

On any public land, or on private property where I am not prohibited from carrying , my right to carry a firearm is not in violation of anyone elses rights.

You will have to spell out what rights, in the U.S. Constitution, which are being vilolated, for your argument to have any validity in a court of law.

I am not familiar with established law in Denmark, and have not considered if you are refering to your rights where you are, or my rights where I am.

[shecky]

While it seems states can certainly restrict firearms, there are some restrictions which are more reasonable than others. The likelyhood that such large bore, long range guns will cause significant problems seems pretty small. They tend to be expensive, unwieldy and probably significantly attention getting. The kind of characteristics that make them unattractive to criminals.

If it's worded to restrict rifled shotguns/slug guns, I suspect it'll have a uphill battle.

The reality is that long range rifles are ubiquitous, to the point that regulating specifics features ends up making ridiculous law. Even in the supposedly gun-regulated state of CA (and possibly in NY even after the legislation), one could buy a high power rifle and a box of ammo for less than $150 out the door.

Never minding the restriction on freedoms (a long established tradition of firearm ownership in the US), it's completely impractical. That horse left the barn a looooong time ago.

[Ranb]

The link for the NY State penal code is not working, but I think their definition of a rifle is the same or nearly the same as the federal definition. It would be, any firearm designed to fire from the shoulder, and has a rifled barrel greater than or equal to 16 inches in length.

This bill will ban all center fire 50 caliber rifles, and rifles greater than 50 caliber. Since the only exemptions are muzzle loading rifles that are not capable of firing fixed cartridges, then this bill covers even low power old style 50 caliber rifles. Any shotgun 28 gauge and larger with a rifled barrel would also be banned. If small 50 caliber sporting rifles are on the hit list, then they will work their way down the caliber list until nothing is left.

The sponcers of this bill surely know that there is not a problem with these rifles. That there is a potential problem exists only in their minds. One could say that they are all ignorant of the scope of this bill, but one usually does not get into a place of power such as this by being stupid or uninformed. I have however watched politicians lie on TV. I'm sure the sponcers of this bill are lying when they say buffalo rifles and shotguns have no acceptable purpose. This bill is just the beginning of the end for all legal civilian ownership of firearms in New York.

Ranb

[Ed]

Originally posted by Ranb
The link for the NY State penal code is not working, but I think their definition of a rifle is the same or nearly the same as the federal definition. It would be, any firearm designed to fire from the shoulder, and has a rifled barrel greater than or equal to 16 inches in length.

This bill will ban all center fire 50 caliber rifles, and rifles greater than 50 caliber. Since the only exemptions are muzzle loading rifles that are not capable of firing fixed cartridges, then this bill covers even low power old style 50 caliber rifles. Any shotgun 28 gauge and larger with a rifled barrel would also be banned. If small 50 caliber sporting rifles are on the hit list, then they will work their way down the caliber list until nothing is left.

The sponcers of this bill surely know that there is not a problem with these rifles. That there is a potential problem exists only in their minds. One could say that they are all ignorant of the scope of this bill, but one usually does not get into a place of power such as this by being stupid or uninformed. I have however watched politicians lie on TV. I'm sure the sponcers of this bill are lying when they say buffalo rifles and shotguns have no acceptable purpose. This bill is just the beginning of the end for all legal civilian ownership of firearms in New York.

Ranb

Another observation: In some areas the only way to hunt big game is with a 12 ga. slug which would be banned (range, what? 100 yards?) thus effectively banning hunting in some areas. As I have said, it is very difficult to support any gun laws when the ultimate goal is banning firearms. This is a pretty transparent ploy.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Snide
I know of people who visit the golf practice ranges, but do not play golf. Guess they're out of luck.

And, yes, it too is dangerous. Many balls go over the net endagering golfers on adjacent fairways at these places. This can happen even to the most famous of golfers. President Gerald Ford was so notorious for hitting spectators with golf balls that Bob Hope once joked, "It's not hard to find Jerry Ford on a golf course - you just follow the wounded."

On February 15, 1995, Ford, Bill Clinton and George Bush (the elder) played in a pro-am tournament at the Indian Wells Golf Club near Palm Springs, California, the first time three presidents had ever golfed together. The end result: Ford shot 100 and struck one spectator. Bush's score was 92 and he hit two spectators, one of whom required hospitalization. Clinton scored a 93 and knocked a piece of watermelon from a boy's hand with one of his shots. Link. (http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/ip040318.html)

Maybe they should ban presidents' playing golf.

[BPSCG]

People, Claus just has a visceral hatred of guns, and you're never going to reason him out of that position, any more than you're going to reason me out of my visceral hatred of olives*, okay?

Remember, it was Claus who started the thread that said if he saw someone on a plane with a gun, he'd kill the guy, thus proving he subscribes to the credo of the Old West, "strangle first and ask questions later."

Ed, you'd better be careful; if you get within twenty meters of him, he's going to go mano a mano with you.**

*I hate olives. To me, they taste worse than a dead cat that's been lying in in the sun in a steamy bayou for three days. I'd rather eat a live roach than eat an olive. I'd rather drink my own vomit than eat an olive. Okay, just a little vomit. Olives = Hitler.

**That's a joke, folks...

[LW]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
The issue was that there was a gun. But, that is another discussion in another thread.

Yes. Another discussion where you started with a hypothetical example that is not possible to happen in the real life [because in the real life you can't be certain that it is a gun that you see and not a misidentification] and from that example you claimed that the real life use of air marshalls is stupid.

Like I wrote back then, before you started that thread, I thought that you were an all-around rational guy. That thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33204&perpage=40&pagenumber=1) convinced me that you are a pure woo-woo with respect to guns.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by BPSCG

I hate olives. To me, they taste worse than a dead cat that's been lying in in the sun in a steamy bayou for three days. I'd rather eat a live roach than eat an olive. I'd rather drink my own vomit than eat an olive. Okay, just a little vomit. Olives = Hitler.

That has to be the most bizarre implementation of Godwin's Law I've ever seen...

[Donks]

Originally posted by BPSCG
I hate olives. To me, they taste worse than a dead cat that's been lying in in the sun in a steamy bayou for three days. I'd rather eat a live roach than eat an olive. I'd rather drink my own vomit than eat an olive. Okay, just a little vomit. Olives = Hitler.
Oh man, you're so missing out. I love olives. I can eat them by the pound. Which is why I don't buy them anymore, I eat them all and end up with a stomach ache.

Just so this post isn't a complete waste of space, a couple of definitions from the NY Penal Code (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/nycodes/c82/a68.html):


3. "Firearm" means (a) any pistol or revolver; or (b) a shotgun having one or more barrels less than eighteen inches in length; or (c) a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length; or (d) any weapon made from a shotgun or rifle whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise if such weapon as altered, modified, or otherwise has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches; or (e) an assault weapon. For the purpose of this subdivision the length of the barrel on a shotgun or rifle shall be determined by measuring the distance between the muzzle and the face of the bolt, breech, or breechlock when closed and when the shotgun or rifle is cocked; the overall length of a weapon made from a shotgun or rifle is the distance between the extreme ends of the weapon measured along a line parallel to the center line of the bore. Firearm does not include an antique firearm.


11. "Rifle" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
What would be an acceptable purpose for such a weapon?

And who do you think should be the arbiter who decides whether or not I have a legitimate purpose for such a weapon? What is the purpose of an engine in a car greater than 150 hp - it can have no other purpose but to break the law by speeding and jepardizing the lives of innocent civilians. Can you imagine a world in which anything we are allowed to possess has to pass some sort of litmus test of legitimate usefulness - by some legitimate usefulness central committee. Or, better yet, how about a world in which I get to decide what you may or may not own based on whether or not I think you need it?

Certainly there is no "legitimate need" for an ATV or for a Humvee or for ultralight airplanes or for really fast motorcycles. There are numbers of 50 caliber gun clubs who enjoy taking out their 50 cal. rifles and doing ultra- long range target shooting. They invest their time and money into this hobby and for them it is great fun. But, you know, like they say, there are always bunches of people out there somewhere living in the great fear that there might be someone, somewhere having fun and it is their singular mission in life to stamp it out whereever it pops up.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Cleon
That has to be the most bizarre implementation of Godwin's Law I've ever seen... Thanks. I try.