Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Extras | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Lawmakers, Cuomo disagree on SAFE Act

March 6, 2013

The Empire State is still in flux when it comes to the NY Safe Act and a subsequent cleanup bil....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(32)

whynot14048

Mar-06-13 5:58 AM

He needs to agree this is his last term and thoughts of the presidency are delusions of grandeur.

7 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

joew

Mar-06-13 6:49 AM

Spoke with a couple of Troopers last week at the rally in Albany and they agreed the law is nothing more than political opportunism.

8 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Dcronlg

Mar-06-13 7:57 AM

Uh-oh...here come all those "Red Dawn" freedom-fighting, liberty-loving vigilantes...thumping their chest because somehow reducing a magazine clip from ten to seven rounds is an erosion of Niagara proportions to our liberty...

...even though in the Founding Fathers' day, when the 2nd Amendment was written, the best of musket men could only fire four rounds a minute...

2 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

joew

Mar-06-13 8:39 AM

Dcronig-may I point out that the "redcoats" had the same ability. Now lets get off the chest thumping,red dawn,vigilante baloney. Please explain to me how reducing the capacity of a magazine from 10 down to 7 will realistically save any lives? Please as well explain how eliminating the grip on my rifle will realistically save any lives? How will outlawing the extendable(not folding)stock on my rifle realistically save any lives?

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

Mar-06-13 8:39 AM

Wonder why this article failed to quote or mention any of the reasons why this law went through. One sided? Does not seem objective journalism to me.

Wonder how many have actually read the law? Exactly which parts of it do they find objectionable? The banning of some weapons that were specifically designed for military use?

One thing that greatly concerns me, is how many (NOT ALL LET ME EMPHASIZE) people against this law..told me they need their guns to fight the "tyranny" of the government.

Is that not what we call terrorists? Did not the weathermen of the sixties think they were fighting a tyranny govt? Did not McVeigh think he was acting against a tyranny govt? etc

To me, it just sounds like old fashion treason. We have something called a ballot box..and free and open elections...that is how we are to "fight" our govt here in a democratic state. Or at least that is what I have always thought.

2 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

Mar-06-13 8:40 AM

joew...just curious. Would you list which weapons you currently own that would come under the ban in this law? Most of the people I know the answer is simple...NONE.

2 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wiseup

Mar-06-13 9:04 AM

Politicans have armed security who carry weapons with more than 7 bullets in the clip and the common citizen can't. I talked to a few cops who said the government can take their extra bullets -One at a Time!!! dcronlg- when gov takes away our freedoms we all loose. We fight to protect morons like you too!

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

joew

Mar-06-13 9:26 AM

Judeye-you really expect me to list here on a public forum what I own? Are you kidding me? Suffice to say I own several firearms. Now please realistically tell me how those restrictions I listed will save any lives.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Dcronlg

Mar-06-13 10:23 AM

Joew - back at you: Please explain to me how reducing the capacity of a magazine from 10 down to 7 chips away at the 2nd amendment and erodes your liberty? Please as well explain how eliminating the grip on your rifle chips away at the 2nd amendment and erodes your liberty? How will outlawing the extendable(not folding)stock on your rifle chips away at the 2nd amendment and erodes your liberty?

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Dcronlg

Mar-06-13 10:30 AM

wiseup -- So, "when gov takes away our freedoms we all loose. We fight to protect morons like you too!", am I to assume you guys with your guns are fighting against the PATRIOT act? Are you guys with your guns fighting gov overreach with curtailing voting rights? Are you guys with your guns fighting gov cutting back on a woman's right to choose with her own body? Are you guys with your guns fighting gov who are actively curtailing gay rights?

Well -- are you guys with your guns fighting gov for...just what exactly and protecting who?

0 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CadeFoster

Mar-06-13 10:33 AM

you want grandstanding by Cuomo, the law already stated no more than 7 shots in a clip, it has been this way in NY state for years. nothing changed with clip capacities.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

joew

Mar-06-13 10:45 AM

Dcronig-I never said what you insinuate sir. I was commenting on the NY SAFE ACT and asking how those three things I listed will save any lives. That I may own a firearm with any of those characteristics means the law as written infringes on my right to own or purchase a firearm with said features. Let me give you one example. My wife has shorter arms than I and therefore she has to shorten the stock in order to use the firearm. Does that make sense?

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Regelski

Mar-06-13 11:03 AM

Am I to understand that the need to change a clip, in target shooting and in hunting is a burden on gun owners that isn't resonble to expect, given the harm that can occur when less than ideal gun owners and gun use is involved. It has been established that in recent events, the need to change clips is relevant. IN the Gifford's shooting, the shooter was interrupted enough that he could be captured by citizens. And at Newtown, the children often had 16 rounds in their bodies. In the Gifford's case, the second clip killed a young girl. Is it too much to ask gun enthusiasts to make a little sacrifice in their convenience for the benefit of us all, especially children?

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

joew

Mar-06-13 1:03 PM

Regelski-"the children often had 16 rounds in their bodies"? What does that mean and please provide your source if you would. I may reconsider my objection.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

RipleyResident

Mar-06-13 1:22 PM

Judeye - if you want answers to your questions, go back to any of the other articles you posted essentially the same questions to, and read the answers. All you do is stir the pot with the same ignorance every time there is a new article that so much as mentions guns.

Regalski, There are no insults in this comment. Pay attention.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

1Laona

Mar-06-13 1:23 PM

DC ron LG,how about the Prince and his men make it 5 rounds next time(if not challenged now)and then 3,and then one(thereby outlawing derringers).How do you protect your home and family? 911? Insert head in sand? Wish it away? Do you feel any concern for those that fought for the rights you enjoy?Did you serve your country?It would help to understand why you and Regulateski SE feel as you do.Judeye sings the chorus in the background....

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

kcw007

Mar-06-13 3:54 PM

No Cadefoster, you're incorrect. There was no limit in the number of rounds which could be loaded into a magazine prior to the 2013 SAFE Act(unless they were afield for hunting) . If you had a 10 round magazine (the maximum which could be purchased as new in NYS since the 1994 Federal AWB) or grandfathered "pre-ban" magazines of more than 10 rounds, you could load them up as you saw fit. And Judeye, most gun owners with any kind of a collection are going to have at least one, if not more, semiauto's with detachable clips; even if they're just 22 rimfires. During the past forty years, semiauto's (pistols, rifles and shotguns) have comprized a majority of new gun sales. During the past decade the AR clones were the most popular centerfire rifle sold nationally. Are you asking people if they own "assault weapons" or semiautos? There's a WHOLE LOT of people out there that fail to yet understand that their semi's are likely to now be classified as "assault weapons&

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

kcw007

Mar-06-13 3:56 PM

kcw007 cont: "...are now likely to be classified as "assault weapons", in one aspect or another, under the SAFE Act.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

RipleyResident

Mar-06-13 4:04 PM

Those of you who love this gun control, look up the Ruger 22 charger. This is a target pistol version of probably the most popular semi-auto 22 rimfire rifle around. In NY, it's an assault weapon, even before the unSAFE act.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

kcw007

Mar-06-13 4:32 PM

And Judeye, how could anyone even remotely aquainted with you not know of your leftist political views? Do you really think that, at this point in time, they're going to confirm to YOU that they own what are now classified as "assault weapons", or for that matter, that they own guns at all?

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

stangv8

Mar-06-13 8:56 PM

Did you know, if your local police respond to an emergency at a school carrying their weapons, their in violation of NY law? Don't think so; just ask them.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MikeDavis

Mar-06-13 11:18 PM

The "what's wrong with SOME curbing of the 2nd?" folks just don't want to hear the truth. It starts out as that "little tweak" and gradually becomes "Here's your sling shot...stay safe" And not one of you can tell anyone how this makes YOU safer. It warms your little hearts to know you "did" something to answer the bad man that killed innocents. But it does nothing to make anyone safer. What it does do is make a lot of innocent people into criminals. Apparently we are dealing with the subservient "politicians are there for your best interest" crowd. Read "Atlas Shrugged" before it's to late. The lady was brilliant to a degree not seen in a generation. Ahead of her time is an understatement. Maybe you will see the inane number of laws already on the state books. But let's curb more rights. That's the answer to an apron string hanging child, not a right bestowed by the Constitution. You are all in such a rush to play out your

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MikeDavis

Mar-06-13 11:20 PM

personal desires on that document it's scary. Do you really think you are smarter than the people that wrote it? The nerve and gall is amazing.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MikeDavis

Mar-06-13 11:27 PM

And in answer to your question Tom. Yes, it is an unreasonable. You answered your own question with the proof. You said "given the harm that can occur when less than ideal gun owners and gun use is involved". Well by golly, look at that. A criminal doing an illegal act is your proof that all law abiding people should have their rights impugned? I'm not only not buying, I'm not even interested in looking. I know your standard response. You are preaching to your echo chamber agaim Mike. No Tom, I'm trying to get you to listen to reason. The curbs you so dearly love and think will be the game changer are NOTHING but smoke and mirrors for the politicians to curry a few votes from the scared citizens that don't want people to have weapons that they don't like.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

Mar-07-13 8:12 AM

MikeDavis...oh your admiration for her explains much.

That is where we fundamentally differ. Some admire her and her "SELFISHNESS IS A VIRTUE" attitude (yes this is a title of a book she also wrote) Others of us believe in sharing and caring with others, kinda like what some spiritual leaders have promoted in their teachings.

we all have choices of who we will follow and see as role models.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 32 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web