I'm all for owning anything and everything. with proper licensing, checks, and procedures.
But anyone that wants to buy shit without paperwork, without paper trails, without background checks? There is not a single, good, legitimate reason to avoid that shit.. and there is a whole lot of bad, dangerous, threat to society reasons to want to avoid that shit.
i'm not gonna agree to disagree on this. You're wrong. Full stop.
There is 1 very good reason. If the government knows you have it, then they have the means to confiscate. This story has been told dozens of times throughout history. Including in the US.
I was trying to be amicable but you're just wrong on this one.
He says, using a thing that's never happened as a backdrop for his taking point
Have a Google at the NY SAFE Act. Or don't and remain ignorant. Your call.
NY SAFE Act.
Which part of this has the gun confiscation bits in it? I read the whole thing on wikipedia and i must have missed it.
I think he's referring to the bit starting on pg 2 regarding mandatory surrender.
"...temporary order of protection is issued, suspend any such existing license possessed by the respondent, order the respondent ineligible for such a license, and order the immediate surrender PURSUANT TO SUBPARAGRAPH (F) OF PARAGRAPH ONE OF SUBDIVISION A OF SECTION 265.20 AND SUBDIVISION SIX OF SECTION 400.05 OF THE PENAL LAW, of any or all firearms owned or possessed..."
thetruthaboutguns.com is not a source. I read the law. Try again.
My dude, ignore the source of the article and look at the document from the NY police department. If you ask for evidence and I provide proof and you wilfully neglect it, there's nothing I can do to help you. That's called wilfull ignorance.
My dude, read the law and think for yourself. It's not long. You've provided no evidence outside an extremely biased news source while I read the whole law. It's not long.
READ IT and stop crying
Wilfull ignorance it is then, I suppose.
Ignorance of a law I can read for myself? Sure buddy. I think you're the ignant one.
but its happened dozens of times, man.
Dozens!
Helen says so, so it must be true!
They feel like it was an event in US history and that's all that matters!
I guess the same argument could be used for privacy aswell. If you're not going to do anything illegal then why not let the government read your messages and monitor your browser history? What's the problem if you have nothing to hide?
99.999% of gun owners are never going to shoot anyone. These kind of databases infringe on the privacy of perfectly innocent citizens only because of the extremely rare number of bad actors among them.
I guess the same argument could be used for privacy aswell
You could, if you wanted to comically misrepresent the point.
What is the comically large difference between the two that I'm not seeing then?
I'm all for owning anything and everything. with proper licensing, checks, and procedures.
But anyone that wants to buy shit without paperwork, without paper trails, without background checks? There is not a single, good, legitimate reason to avoid that shit.. and there is a whole lot of bad, dangerous, threat to society reasons to want to avoid that shit.
i'm not gonna agree to disagree on this. You're wrong. Full stop.
There is 1 very good reason. If the government knows you have it, then they have the means to confiscate. This story has been told dozens of times throughout history. Including in the US.
I was trying to be amicable but you're just wrong on this one.
He says, using a thing that's never happened as a backdrop for his taking point
Have a Google at the NY SAFE Act. Or don't and remain ignorant. Your call.
Which part of this has the gun confiscation bits in it? I read the whole thing on wikipedia and i must have missed it.
https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2013/S2230
I think he's referring to the bit starting on pg 2 regarding mandatory surrender.
"...temporary order of protection is issued, suspend any such existing license possessed by the respondent, order the respondent ineligible for such a license, and order the immediate surrender PURSUANT TO SUBPARAGRAPH (F) OF PARAGRAPH ONE OF SUBDIVISION A OF SECTION 265.20 AND SUBDIVISION SIX OF SECTION 400.05 OF THE PENAL LAW, of any or all firearms owned or possessed..."
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/begins-new-york-sending-gun-confiscation-notices/
thetruthaboutguns.com is not a source. I read the law. Try again.
I can't even find the word confiscation. Can you explain that to me?
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/begins-new-york-sending-gun-confiscation-notices/
thetruthaboutguns.com is not a source. I read the law. Try again.
Seriously -- I'm googling and nothing is coming up. What are you talking about?
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/begins-new-york-sending-gun-confiscation-notices/
thetruthaboutguns.com is not a source. I read the law. Try again.
My dude, ignore the source of the article and look at the document from the NY police department. If you ask for evidence and I provide proof and you wilfully neglect it, there's nothing I can do to help you. That's called wilfull ignorance.
My dude, read the law and think for yourself. It's not long. You've provided no evidence outside an extremely biased news source while I read the whole law. It's not long.
READ IT and stop crying
Wilfull ignorance it is then, I suppose.
Ignorance of a law I can read for myself? Sure buddy. I think you're the ignant one.
but its happened dozens of times, man.
Dozens!
Helen says so, so it must be true!
They feel like it was an event in US history and that's all that matters!
I guess the same argument could be used for privacy aswell. If you're not going to do anything illegal then why not let the government read your messages and monitor your browser history? What's the problem if you have nothing to hide?
99.999% of gun owners are never going to shoot anyone. These kind of databases infringe on the privacy of perfectly innocent citizens only because of the extremely rare number of bad actors among them.
You could, if you wanted to comically misrepresent the point.
What is the comically large difference between the two that I'm not seeing then?