New York Discussion in Progress

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/n...-on-gun-laws.html?partner=MYWAY&ei=5065&_r=1&
What the heck is a Military Feature? is Camo a military feature? If so my goose gun is NOW an assault shotgun. this is frickin nuts.

You can sit and watch your rights taken away.

Nope, I think that any law enforcement officers should HAVE to comply with whatever the law requires of its citizens. Wouldn't want the possibility of a retired LEO or anyone else from getting their hands on one of those highly dangerous 10 (or more) round magazines a year down the road, now, would we?!?

OK, sarcasm off. But seriously, I think the police will all make a big complaint and it will serve to highlight the stupidity of those who rammed this lame-brained bill through in the middle of the night.

Dan Losquadro is doing a good job discussing this.

Thieves in the night.

Jorg,
Now that he's debating the bill he is. Before that on the clarification, it was just semantics.

Is there any way to watch this other than the OP's link? I'm not having any luck with the streaming video...

Trent said:

James Tedisco is knocking it out of the bloody park.

Oh my god.

This guy is GOOD.

Click to expand...

+1..... it will fall on deaf ears.

Now Tedisco is doing a good job in my opinion.

This is so awesome.

Next up is "Public Hearing: The Impact of New York State's "I Love New York" Brand Redevelopment"

I can watch New Yorkers have their guns taken away in real time, and nobody seems to know what they are talking about.

"If you have a magazine with only seven bullets, it will limit the number of people you can unlawfully kill."

"What should a home owner do in a home invasion scenario?"

"Change the clip, and call the cops."

Who's the idiot who defends a 7x limit by saying that the home-defender can "change the clip"?

Does that booger-eating moron NOT realize that criminals can "change the clip", too?

And I'm donating to Tedisco's campaign fund!
EDIT: That's McLaughlin, I think.

So they recognize that a homeowner can reload, but not the criminal? When it is likely the homeowner will only have one mag loaded, and the criminal will bring a backpack full?

Steven Mclaughlin nails it!!

Skribs said:

So they recognize that a homeowner can reload, but not the criminal? When it is likely the homeowner will only have one mag loaded, and the criminal will bring a backpack full?

Click to expand...

Yeah, don't think the gun grabber liked that on! He got owned.

Who's the idiot who defends a 7x limit by saying that the home-defender can "change the clip"?

Click to expand...

That was just mind-boggling. The 7-round limit will prevent a bad guy from illegally hurting a lot of people, but a good guy can just swap clips.

New York Assembly discussion

Listening to the debate in the New York State Assembly, the current discussion is about a limit change from 10 rounds to 7 rounds in a magazine. The opponent asked why, the reply was, "So you can illegally kill fewer people with one magazine." Note, if you already owned a magazine that carried 10 rounds, all you had to do to comply with the law is only put 7 rounds in the magazine.

Can these people really not see the disconnect??

I mean, what's the likely hood if you were going to perpetrate an illegal killing...you would only put 7 rounds in the magazine, so you didn't break the law?