State Gun Control Legislation

so you're on record as a supporter of murder of government officials and violent anarchy.

Is killing an enemy in warfare considered murder?

Part of the reason I oppose said law, is because I believe it would result in anarchy, when people willfully disobey such a law due to unconstitutionality and defend themselves from oppression. Enforcing such a law destroys the relationship between law enforcement and the community that they are supposed to protect.

There is a difference between opposing something so vigorously as to not be opposed to violence in defiance, and outright opposing law and order in whole cloth.

You are now on record as misrepresenting someone else said entirely now, though.

In the United States, there is something called a separation of powers, which includes a lawmaking branch of government that makes the laws and a judiciary to review the constitutionality of laws. Local police officers and sheriffs were never given a veto power over our civilian government per the U.S. Constiution, fortunately. And as mentioned, there were periods in history, especially during fuedal times, when the local sheriffs were judge, jury, and executioner. A gun and a set of handcuffs is not nearly the same as legal training, popular election, or appointment to a judgeship.

Lack of enforcement is not equivalent to explicit engagement.

If the Feds pass a law in which slavery is again legal, do you put fault in local/State forces that refuse to enforce the law?

is killing a government official who is upholding the law equal to war?

you oppose the law because you believe it will result in anarchy, yet you promote the idea of anarchy as a means to counteract the law. "this law will lead to anarchy, so we must use anarchy to prevent this law from being enforced." (i notice this is similar to the republican's logic on spending -- "we must stop government spending because if we don't stop government spending the government will have to stop spending", but i digress.)

this is not about "anything." this is about the majority decide that while certain guns are legal, certain other guns are not. and some want to commit violence against the gov.

In the United States, there is something called a separation of powers, which includes a lawmaking branch of government that makes the laws and a judiciary to review the constitutionality of laws. Local police officers and sheriffs were never given a veto power over our civilian government per the U.S. Constiution, fortunately. And as mentioned, there were periods in history, especially during fuedal times, when the local sheriffs were judge, jury, and executioner. A gun and a set of handcuffs is not nearly the same as legal training, popular election, or appointment to a judgeship.

You are of course, completely oblivious to the oaths and responsibilities of law enforcement officers, and the military as well, as ConservativeNYer pointed out.

Which isn't surprising.

It's an oath to uphold a constitution that gives them no special right to usurp the laws of our democratically elected government. Elmer, if you take the SlickDeals Oath to Defend the U.S. Constitution™ with me, maybe we can decide which laws we want to follow too.

Is killing an enemy in warfare considered murder?

It's an oath to uphold a constitution that gives them no special right to usurp the laws of our democratically elected government. Elmer, if you take the SlickDeals Oath to Defend the U.S. Constitution™ with me, maybe we can decide which laws we want to follow too.

How ominous. The pro-gun movement thrives on irrational fear, like the "THEY ARE COMING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS" line. From the NRA's Wayne LaPierre this week (emphasis mine):

One would guess that after 90 days they would start to take them from those that didn't do it voluntarily though.

Nothing in the NY law mandated taking the guns away from residents. It was just tightening up an existing assault weapons ban, limited magazine capacity, and increasing background checks.

The problem is that some of the state's rights people believe states are not subject to federal laws and for example a local sheriff could disobey rulings by the SCOTUS and orders by the POTUS,

Quite hilarious.

Just read this in the bill:

A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned,

The difference between seizing something and prohibiting something is huge. Again, it really speaks to the absolutist mindset that some people believe that it's either ALL guns or NO guns. There's a reasonable amount of regulation that strikes a balance between the two. Like most things, there can be a happy median. The fact that the NRA instead tries to sell this as a dichotomy really speaks to their radical fundamentalism. Most Americans are much more practical about things.

IMO violence against our government is unwarranted as long as we have free elections.

The bill, S.B. 5737, proposes "banning the sale of assault weapons." According to the legislation, an "assault weapon" is any semiautomatic pistol, pump-action rifle or shotgun that can accept a detachable magazine, with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds. Any magazine that accepts over 10 rounds itself will also be banned.

Also included in the definition is any rifle or shotgun with a pistol grip, a stock of any kind, a muzzle brake or muzzle compensator.

In order to continue to possess a so-called assault weapon that was owned before the assumed passing of the legislation, the person must "safely and securely" store the assault weapon and allow the sheriff of the county to, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to "ensure compliance," despite some apparent civil liberties implications related to the Fourth Amendment.

The bill also gives no definition of what “safe and secure” storage consists of.