As a collector of older rifles I have a question for the group.

[oneshooter]

Many of my long arms are pre 1900 Winchesters ans Marlins, all lever actions. Many have 12-24 round tube magazines on them. These are 100+ year old rifles. The question I have is what happens to the tube magazine if there are restrictions to 10 round or less? Will I, and others be forced to cut the mags off, or disable the rifle?

[GP6971]

1. Don't know...

Maybe plugs?

[ManiacJoe]

16. Plugs would be the logical answer

As that is what the current state hunting laws normally prescribe.

But then, logic and legislation don't always play well together.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

2. Hopefully the law passed will be a ban on many semiautos.

I think we’d all be pretty happy with Canada’s gun laws.

There, most variants of semi-auto long gun are restricted or prohibited and have constraints on magazine size if allowed. Lever actions are allowed with any size magazine.

That seems like a reasonable law and one we should advocate for.

[Straw Man]

7. No one yet knows what the law will contain.

NY's law does not exempt lever actions, or pump actions, or bolt actions. It does not exempt non-removable magazines. The only exemption is tubular magazines for .22 rimfire. IMO, NY's SAFE Act is not "a reasonable law." I would hope that the federal law does not similarly overreach.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

15. When gun people get kids killed, it's hard to complain much though.

I know some laws will impact your life, but people who support guns or the NRA in any way helped get this little girl killed.

Link to tweet

Lay down with dogs, get fleas. Few Americans who know what's going on with the NRA are now going to be swayed by arguments about "reasonable gun laws". People who love guns should have thought of that before deciding they loved guns more than they love kids.

[Straw Man]

18. So we can list you as "in favor of unreasonable gun laws," then?

"People who support guns in any way" get kids killed? That's a ridiculously broad brush and a bullshit charge. It's the kind of extremism that drives rural moderates into the arms of the Republican Party. And no, by the way, it doesn't save any kids. Not a single one.

Nobody "love[s] guns more than they love kids." Spare us the virtue signaling, and never, ever, whine about the unwillingness of gun owners to compromise. That would be hypocrisy of the rankest sort.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

20. List me in favor of "No more school kids shot dead"

“No more screwing up our children with active shooter drills because NRA wants to make money and GOP donors want votes for tax cuts.”

I’ll own that.
I stand with that.

Will you own the deaths of schoolkids if you’ve ever donated to the NRA directly or by buying guns or ammo from a company that does donate to the NRA?

[Straw Man]

22. How many have been shot dead with tube-fed lever action rifles?

Last edited Thu Aug 15, 2019, 02:13 AM - Edit history (1)

That's the part of the law I'm calling unreasonable.

Will you own the deaths of schoolkids if you’ve ever donated to the NRA directly or by buying guns or ammo from a company that does donate to the NRA?

No. I won't. As I've said before, it's a bullshit charge. Should weed smokers own the deaths of those murdered by the cartels? Should everybody who has taken a sip of alcohol own the death toll that drunken drivers inflict on the public? Bullshit.

Every single gun and ammo manufacturer has donated to the NRA because it's a lobbying group that represents their interests. Making the NRA the boogeyman isn't going to save one single kid. Not one. If anything, gun-control overreach and overblown rhetoric have sold more AR-15s than all the efforts of the NRA and gun manufacturers combined. Your wedge issue isn't saving lives.

[friendly_iconoclast]

23. There are several reasons why controllers like to go with the "collective guilt-tripping" schtick

*They get to feel all self-righteous and morally superior to "those people"

*It's a handy virtue signal

And probably most important:

*It leaves them feeling like they've Done Something, when in reality all they've done is put wear on a keyboard...

[EndGOPPropaganda]

29. Do alcohol cos take massive donations to advocate for Republicans via alcohol identity politics?

No, they don’t.

The difference is that the NRA has been taken over by Republican donors FOR POLITICAL ENDS.

That’s why the NRA is a terrorist organization.
And that’s why if you buy guns or ammo you are complicit in kids’ deaths. Because you support a political terror organization that supports kid deaths to get Republicans elected to office.

[Straw Man]

31. Start talking about bringing back Prohibition ...

... and see how politically active alcohol producers get.

So donating money for political ends is now called terrorism? You missed the part about advocating violence to achieve those aims. Hyperbole is not your friend.

You want Canadian gun laws, yet people could still be killed with the guns that Canadian law allows. Would you not, then, by your own definition, also be a terrorist?

[EndGOPPropaganda]

32. Do alcohol cos take massive donations to advocate for Republicans via alcohol identity politics?

In failing to respond to your assertion, you’ve made my point clear: the NRA functions as a terrorist organization. And alcohol companies do not.

Thank you for confirming that.

[friendly_iconoclast]

33. The onus is on *you* to prove your argument, not others to refute it to your specifications.

And so far, all you have is repeated assertion.

[Straw Man]

34. Perhaps you missed my point.

If there were an active movement to reinstate Prohibition -- comparable to the current active movement to implement much greater gun control measures -- the alcohol companies would take massive donations to advocate for whichever party seemed favorable to their industry, via "alcohol identity politics" (whatever that means) or whatever politics they could find that would further their business interests.

Is that clear enough for you?

[yagotme]

49. It will be ever-clear for me,

with perhaps a bit of butterscotch flavoring...

[Straw Man]

51. I see what you did there.

But butterscotch?

[yagotme]

53. Yep.

Vacationed in TN this year, bought some butterscotch everclear. Goes down smoooootttthhhhhh.

[Buzz cook]

39. "Should weed smokers own the deaths of those murdered by the cartels? "

Yes they should. If they buy marijuana illegally they are financing the men who control growth and distribution. Those men use deadly violence to maintain and extent their control. If marijuana users restricted themselves to legal or home grown products that would mean there would be no money going to the marijuana cartels and no reason for them to use violence.

This is pretty much econ 101 supply and demand.

[Straw Man]

40. Fair enough.

By that logic, then, gun owners who restrict themselves to legally purchased or homemade firearms should also be left in peace.

[Buzz cook]

41. Nope logic fail there

Because A therefore B is not a logical argument.

Nowhere in the supply and demand argument does it state how marijuana users should be treated.

You're trying to be clever.

[Straw Man]

42. "Left in peace" equals "not own the deaths"

I thought that much was self-evident. Apparently it wasn't.

Perception fail.

[Buzz cook]

43. You're kidding

Given how contentious this subject is do you really expect me to believe you simply misspoke?

You made a bad analogy. You made a poor inference from my response. Own it.

[Straw Man]

44. No, I'm not kidding.

If in the context of this argument you didn't understand that "gun owners should be left in peace" was equivalent to "gun owners should not be expected to own the actions of killers," that's on you.

You don't want to blame legal/ethical weed smokers for the bad acts of drug cartels. I don't want to blame legal/ethical gun owners for the bad acts of spree killers. What's so hard to understand about that?

I did not misspeak. You failed to understand a simple and obvious parallel. That's on you.

[yagotme]

50. My firearms were purchased legally,

background check, waiting period, etc. They have not committed any murders, mass or otherwise. Nor have they been violent. (Well, some of the big boys recoil a good bit.) Therefore, I should be able to keep them, right?

[friendly_iconoclast]

24. I must say, you've certainly signalled your virtues in this thread

The question remains: What else have you done, aside from putting wear on a text input device?

[Straw Man]

19. Canada's gun laws?

I think we’d all be pretty happy with Canada’s gun laws.

There, most variants of semi-auto long gun are restricted or prohibited and have constraints on magazine size if allowed.

These long guns are unrestricted in Canada. Note the numerous semi-autos with "assault" features. These are no longer legal in NY State.

https://www.firearmsoutletcanada.com/rifles/non-restricted

[friendly_iconoclast]

21. It seems your interlocutors' knowledge of Canadian gun law is on a par with...

..their political acumen.

[IADEMO2004]

3. I'd guess lever guns will be ok.

[bottomofthehill]

4. Depends on the wording

But they are not detachable or interchangeable so if it is similar to 94 there will be no impcat

[Straw Man]

5. NY made an exemption for .22 rimfire tubular magazines ...

... but nothing else. Your antique rifles are technically illegal here unless they're the above caliber.

I have yet to hear of anyone being prosecuted in this state for owning such a rifle, of which there must be thousands. I would like to see some DA try it, if only to show how ludicrous the statue is.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

6. Depends. Does the restriction only apply to auto or semi-auto guns?

If so, your lever-actions are fine.

Plus, the restriction may only apply to removable magazines/clips.

If it applies to your guns, a gunsmith can probably permanently reduce the tube capacity without affecting the appearance, but harder to reverse than simply removing a plug.

We'll have to see what language passes, if any.

[krispos42]

8. You're a child-hating monster

Look at you, stockpiling assault weapons like that. And only a child-hating monster cares the slightest about how a gun law actually works, or questions anything about them because THE CHILDREN.



{normal tone of voice}

Well, see, now, if the people proposing the laws either knew anything about guns we would have some reason to have hope of an intelligent discussion about this. However, since those people believe one or more of the following:

• Gun culture must be demonized at all levels until it is destroyed
  
• Anything pissing off a gun owner is a good thing
  
• The only good gun is a destroyed gun
  
• Objective gun-related facts are NRA propaganda
  
• Gun owners don't care about children
  
• No gun law is unreasonable
  
• No gun law is ineffective
  
• Following the law as written is immoral and proves you hate America, children, and apple pie.
  
• Questioning the effectiveness of a law, ditto.

So, good luck. It's only a matter of time until you own an arsenal of high-capacity assault weapons because your magazines dare to have a capacity of more than 2 rounds.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

9. Something to add to your list:

F*$% the NRA

[krispos42]

10. That's just a knee-jerk reaction

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

13. IMHO...

...any noise from any supposed group of 5,000,000 pro-control, bullet insurance, assault weapon ban fans is just the sound of 4,999,993 knees jerking.

[sarisataka]

11. 2 round capacity?

What sort of spree killing are you planning on going on?



Single shot only, it will require a tool to reload so the minimum time for your second shot is at least 30 seconds.

Now you probably hunt so need ammunition to practice and to hunt so we can allow that. You will be allowed to buy 14 rounds per year. That lets you shoot every month plus two for hunting. It will be a minimum of $10 per round with an initial $100 per round deposit. To buy your 14 rounds you must bring all 14 cases back. If you don't you will forfeit the entire deposit plus pay a $500 penalty.

If you don't support this common sense measure you love your guns more than any person on the earth and probably should have to get a psychiatrist to sign off that you are ok to own guns.


I won't use the sarcasm smilie because there are some out there who would say this is "a good start"

[krispos42]

30. The Republicans are trying to put, socially, in 1953.

The anti-gun people are trying to put us in 1853, hi-tech wise.

[Alea]

12. Aren't guns made before 1899 exempt from everything?

I don't think you even have to go through an ffl to buy them.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

14. I believe they're exempt from federal requirements

Individual states can be another issue.

[Alea]

17. Of course you are right. I didn't think of that.

For all the people that say "here's your musket that the 2nd Amendment allows" ...

We won't even be able to have a musket by the time they're finished.



I think the UK has moved on to banning kitchen knives now so there's always work to be done. Rocks after that...

[The Mouth]

35. The "here's your musket" people

should be forced to communicate with quill fucking pens and town criers.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

36. OTOH, there's no substitute for...

...the up close and personal effect of a morning star but I won't be bringing one to a gunfight.

[The Mouth]

37. Well, as back-up

i have a 'Bastard Sword" hanging in the living room, just because I used to make knives and studied swordsmithing.

My guitarist dropped by and asked "why the hell do you need that thing?", to which I replied "If the Zombies keep coming after I run out of ammo".

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

38. When should you use a broadsword rather than a desert eagle?

When you won't have time to reload.

[oneshooter]

25. Only if the new law evempts them.

During the last " magazine ban" there was no exemptions for any rifle except 22rimfire. That would mean that some of my rifles would have to have the magazine tubes cut down. And possession of unmounted tubes would have been a Felony.

[comradebillyboy]

26. I doubt if the new rules would apply to 'Curios and Antiques' which any

100+ year old rifle wold be.

[flotsam]

27. Well if you go after waterfowl with a shotgun

depending on jurisdiction " Shotguns must be "plugged" to prevent them from firing more than three rounds before reloading." I figure that can solve the problem...

[gejohnston]

28. Waterfowl regulations is a federal law

Migratory Birds Act and a treaty with Canada. The three round rule is federal, and probably applies to Canada as well.

[samir.g]

45. permanently restricting the magazine is not an unreasonable demand

Weld a plug in there.

[Straw Man]

47. Not an unreasonable demand?

To completely destroy the collectability and historical value of a 100+ year-old rifle of a type that has never been used in mass shooting? You must be joking.

The notion of mag capacity limits as some sort of answer to the problem of mass killings is flawed from the get-go. Is 10 an acceptable number of deaths? Would you consider the problem solved if spree killers were limited to 10 victims?

[aikoaiko]

46. Well, they were designed as weapons of war just like AR15s. Melt them down.

I reality so called Assault Weapons Bans are a bad idea.

[Cartoonist]

52. Yeah. You got a problem with that?

Maybe you could get a Teddy bear to sleep with at night.

Please explain how your life would be ruined or destroyed by having to cut the mags off, or disable the rifle.

[Alea]

57. I re read his post 3 times

Trying to see where he said his life would be ruined or destroyed. Not seeing it. Your sour reply is sour.

[Cartoonist]

58. Hyperbole

If it wont harm him, what's his problem?

[Historic NY]

54. Really......

not even in NY...you already know that, and you know that your limit to the number of rounds when your hunting. The restriction for hunting has been in effect for decades....included shotguns too. I've hunted with an 1898 lever action and had a wooden block for it.

[Alea]

56. His post wasn't about hunting lol

[yagotme]

59. But with a "block", (plug),

that means the magazine could be "readily convertible" back to original capacity. His problem, as I see it, is taking a historic arm, and making a permanent modification to the magazine, severely destroying the collector value of the piece. Therefore, it would "harm" him, by reducing the investment value of it. Like buying a house with a swimming pool, and the community passes an ordinance banning pools, and you have to have it filled in. Cost of filling the pool, plus loss of market value, is "harm".

[The Mouth]

55. ALL GUNZ ARE EVIL!

Think of the Children!

Obviously, if you even have ONE, or want one, you are a racist, Nazi NRA member who loves seeing kids killed!

You evil gun humper, you