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.
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…”
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.
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’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.
deleted by creator
He says, using a thing that’s never happened as a backdrop for his taking point
deleted by creator
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…”
deleted by creator
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?
deleted by creator
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?
deleted by creator
thetruthaboutguns.com is not a source. I read the law. Try again.
deleted by creator
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
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?