Soju

Bad argument (though not necessarily untrue). That would mean the law in unconstitutional, and therefore invalid. I'm not saying it is (though you could certainly debate it), but if there is some sort of implied waiving of a right, that means on it's own it isn't lawful to begin with. Though that is moot, because requiring a permit to carry is a violation of the 2nd anyways (IMO). Considering that, it is no surprise that another right may also be violated. Edit: Reading my own post I see it is slightly confusing. So to put it simply... If you have to give up your 5th Amendment right to exercise your 2nd Amendment right, either neither are really rights or the laws are unconstitutional to begin with.

Good luck! Out of my own curiosity, I searched the web to see what is available. Not counting the stuff on gun broker going for insane amounts of money, I was unable to find a single semi-auto rifle, in ANY caliber, that is currently available. Nothing from 2 of the webs largest distributors, and nothing from any of the manufacturers I could think of (must have checked over a dozen). Insane! You can still order direct from some manufactures, but have no not seen an estimated weight time of less than 6 months. There are a half a dozen firearms I have been wanting to get for a few months. I had the chance to get 4 of them about a month and a half ago. I didn't. Big mistake on my part. (Ironically, none are semi-auto rifles). Also, as most know, there is almost no ammo available in most major (popular/common) calibers.

What these guys said. The laws are for thee not for me...

Say that to the person who is a shit situation and ends up not being able to completely defend themselves or family because of some arbitrary restriction. Statistics don't mean squat on a personal level. I would say it doesn't matter if I valued a certain group of people's lives more than another groups. I think it is fair to assume you do not think the life of a LEO is more important than your own life, your family members lives, or just a random law abiding citizen. Is this a correct assumption? That is why if it is deemed acceptable for LEOs, it should be equally acceptable for law abiding citizens.

Crap. Guess my international themed "the health effects of eating food in bad weather" blog is out.

Don't underestimate the power of a sitting Sheriff in the south. Quartzsite, AZ had some pretty interesting stuff go on with their [former] police chief. Just saying.

What is ironic is they have it nearly backwards. The intent of GUN CONTROL originally did have to do with racism against blacks... People can only lie and misrepresent things so much...I hope.

1. No. 2. No. 3. No. You don't even need to answer. Use discretion. Understand the situation. Use judgment on whether or not you think saying or not saying something is better or worse. Pick your battles. If all else fails, simply shut up and don't say anything.

Exactly! Saying police are more likely to encounter a threat means it is okay for them but not for us is saying that it is okay for a citizen to be a killed, or at least, more okay. That is of course, ridiculous. That also isn't what I think anybody is saying here, but rather what some of those great legislators are saying. (See above video for proof of that! "Change the clip." What a friggin douche.)

Not sure what your reason for posting is if you won't entertain the topic. But this specific bill changed multiple laws, not just the magazine capacity... No consistency at all.

Some do. Others not so much unfortunately.

I actually agree with you mostly, except for the highlighted part. What does getting paid have anything to do with it? Hell, I would love to be both PAID and be EXEMPT from having to follow laws. That is awesome. But most people couldn't PAY enough to even get a fair law nevertheless be exempt from them! I only support LEO's being exempt because it is a stupid law, not because it is fair. Every law abiding citizen should be exempt.

Last I checked, making the 'mistake' of getting out of your vehicle was not a crime, nor does it warrant being shot over. For whatever reason, some police tend to overreact when people are lawfully carrying a firearm. I would say this officer overreacted. When the gentleman told him he had a permit to carry it, the officer told him he didn't care. Why wouldn't he care? Seems odd to not care to know somebody is following the law and not in actual criminal. On the other hand, the gentleman was lucky he didn't actually get shot. Jeffrey Weinhaus on the other hand, was not so lucky. http://www.ksdk.com/...ed-in-shooting-

Unless you are the boss, EVERYONE with a job has restrictions on what you can say when it comes to your job without being fired.

??????

This is unusual because Vermont doesn't have a history with pushing any sort of regulations on firearms, though oddly suppressors are illegal.

Maybe they could work on exempting law abiding citizens as well and make it only applicable to criminals. Oh wait, they consider anyone not part of their 'gang' (for a lack of better words) to be criminals...

My mistake. I don't want to be a test subject, but I will be the average schmoe. I can write a great psych clearance as well.

Well I'll bite the bullet (pun intended???) and be the test subject on this one. Where should we meet for you to train me to shoot full auto? I don't even want a cut in the $500.

There is no serious claim to that. Three less rounds means they now only have seven to go.

I quoted the applicable sections in posts 313 and 314. Also, here it is. http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/s2230-2013

To stir the pot a bit, as it was starting to burn... Why should all felons be prohibited from owning firearms and be stripped of that right?

1. No, not exactly. 2. The answer is in the Constitution...

Rights have never been safe. There is nothing in the Bill of Rights that is beneficial to the government, and nothing they aren't willing to take away. The 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th Amendments have already been restricted in various capacities, or in some case, completely ignored.

It is not uncommon for atrocities committed by governments to be systematically ignored, denied, distorted, or even made into events of greatness. Acknowledging it AND condemning it is admitting guilt and showing how they don't always have peoples interests in mind. In other words, it proves they can and will use power for 'evil'. This is sort of like Nanking on a much smaller scale.