Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Tearsheets | Media Kit | All Access E-Edition | Routes | Home RSS
 
 
 

Other shoe drops on New York’s SAFE Act

February 22, 2014

Ever since state legislators passed the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act of 2013 in response to the tragic Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the outdoor industry has been......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(17)

vaulgarboatman

Feb-22-14 7:37 AM

GOOD JOB COUMO!!!!!

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

letsbecivil

Feb-22-14 5:36 PM

yes. keep complaining about the SAFE act. Until your kids get slaughtered at school. Don't tell me you need an AK or a 30 round clip to 'protect' you or them. When was the last time you needed protection in the deep woods of the Adirondacks?

Yes, we ALL know that it is only a 'matter of time' til the boogie man comes for us. We are sooo self important. Maybe the 'government' will come for us. Oh no! The sky is falling

0 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GSampson

Feb-23-14 10:34 AM

Letsbecivil, its not completely about the safe act. It is how the state is treating well established employers and how they keep taking rights away from its citizens. The type of guns in these outrageous acts are not the problem it is the people who don't obey the laws or obtain these weapons illegally, which the safe act does nothing about. All law abiding will follow these laws even if we don't like them. It is also our RIGHT to complain, just like it is your right to post your comments.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

RayKnobs

Feb-23-14 10:41 AM

letsbecivil, Don't tell me you need to drive your Subaru into the woods to look at butterflies. See, I also can dream up useless laws that do nothing except infringe upon law abiding citizens. Don't presume to know what other people "need" It's the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ny2azandback

Feb-23-14 10:48 AM

Well said Sampson, another important thing to remember let'sbecivil, 30 round magazines made after 94 were still illegal, and extremely hard to come by. The number of rounds in a weapon is unimportant as reloading takes but mere seconds even to untrained user. And finally, making something illegal based on appearance is ridiculous. An AR-15 with things like a pistol grip, or forward grip is now illegal, and these items do not change the performance of the firearm at all. It's a lot like have a Chevy 350 big block engine in a car and a truck, and banning the car because it looks more dangerous. Criminals break laws, they will still break this one.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

aggieheaven

Feb-23-14 11:01 AM

Unfortunately, facts regarding the business deal don't lineup with the opinion of a hayseed columnist. who has never owned a business. The state of Alabama gave Remington Arms a $68.9M bribe to put the plant in Huntsville. Had nothing to do with gun control, it was all about the Benjamins.

***********al****/business/index.ssf/2014/02/alabamas_incentive_offer_to_re.html

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ny2azandback

Feb-23-14 12:27 PM

New York State also help Remington to secure an 80 million dollar government contract to stay in nys, according to us representive Richard Hanna. So the political, bribing ball bounces both ways. This is why Remington simply expanded to Huntsville. The contract which is for sniper rifles is for 10 years and when broken down by contract obligations equals out to 16,000 bucks a rifle.. Even a Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle isn't a 16,000 dollar weapons system. Fact is Remington wanted out of the state but they are in the business of making money. If I owned Remington I wouldn't pass on an 80 million dollar contract. Once the AL plant is operational we will really see what happens in illion. Have a feeling it won't be profit worth to keep the plant operational anymore.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

letsbecivil

Feb-23-14 2:15 PM

typical knuckledragger remarks. "the constitution gives me the right". "crimimals will not obey" "don't tell me what I need" Listen. If you people were disarmed and guns were made illegal or very hard to come by like in most countries, we wouldn't have this mass shooting problem. Don't tell me the Constitution protects you. A 250+ year old document? Black people were 3/5's in the Constitution also. There is this little thing called progress/change/evolution. We even have electricity now. Fancy that?

0 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

adkman

Feb-23-14 6:26 PM

letsbecivil should get real. We have lost literally thousands of jobs here due to the Safe act and how many more due to the high taxes. I hope the boogie man comes to your house first and you can use your butterfly net to chase him away

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JohnThomasRouke

Feb-23-14 7:59 PM

letsbecivil, Ironic you chose that name because it sounds like you're just another liberal/progressive/socialist , that isn't tolerant of traditional American values.

You see, the first 10 amendments of the US Constitution affirm our Bill of RIGHTS. They DO NOT come from GOVERNMENT.

They simply affirm rights given by GOD....Oh you probably don't believe in a being superior to your oh so enlightened self....

If you, and your Progressive friends want our guns so badly, why don't you come knock on gunowners doors and come and take them! Don't send some errand boy with a uniform and/or a badge to do your dirtywork!

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

HDMotorcop

Feb-23-14 8:15 PM

Letsbecivil.........you are the only here who has taken an antagonistic stance, WHY? Is there some reason for this? Why not an intelligent interaction based upon facts? I see this all the time when a poster of person fails to have a fact based position and is only based upon emotion.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

letsbecivil

Feb-23-14 9:19 PM

OK I will address all you lovelies living in the 18th century. No guns = no mass shootings. Look at any other country that keeps guns at bay. Australia, England, Canada etc. When you ask for the 'facts', fact is the countries that keep guns away from their citizens both avoid mass shootings AND don't seem to be on the verge of 'taking away freedoms'. As to the argument that GOD is the one who has 'given us rights'? My word... it appears that the education system has failed you with that argument.

To quote "You see, the first 10 amendments of the US Constitution affirm our Bill of RIGHTS. They DO NOT come from GOVERNMENT." Who do you thing wrote the Constitution? God? No, it was your government.

And to the poster who seems to be more worried about money/jobs than keeping our kids safe, I say SHAME. You would rather keep some war mongering gun/ammo manufacturer happy than prevent people from being gunned down? I am embarrassed to have you as fellow citizens

0 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JohnThomasRouke

Feb-23-14 9:29 PM

Hate to tell you sunshine, after guns were banned in Australia, burglary and home invasions went up 300% Under your false sense of logic, we should disarm all governments of the world, and then we won;t have war....

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ADE1995

Feb-23-14 9:53 PM

letsbecivil,

The Rampage Shooting Index, complied by the Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development (OECD) & covering the 5 year period beginning on January 1, 2009 & ending on December 31, 2013, indicates the nation with the highest INCIDENCE of mass shooting per 1,000,000 is Finland. Followed by Israel, Switzerland, Norway & Slovakia.

The nations with the highest number of mass shooting FATALITIES per 1,000,000 in order are Norway, Finland, Slovakia, Israel, & Switzerland.

In both cases the USA is number 6 According to the OEDC, the first 5 countries have very restrictive firearm regulations. The OEDC thinks the USA does not.

This isn't saying mass shootings in the USA are not a horror because other counties are worse, or that we shouldn't work to limit, if not eliminate, their occurance, it's just to point out it is naive to think that if ". . . .guns were made illegal or very hard to come by like in most counties." it would solve the

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Concussion

Feb-24-14 8:57 AM

I'm as liberal as George Michael chillin out in Elton John's bathhouse and I think the SAFE act is unconstitutional. You can't honestly tell me that a gun that has 7 rounds in a 10 round magazine is somehow safer....I think you're delusional. That because a gun is a certain color it's more dangerous. With a straight face, you can't tell me that because a gun has a flash suppressor it's inherently more deadly. To me, this demonstrates that you have no idea what you are talking about.

With that being said, we all should have a part in this conversation and much of the blame is on people like, Letsbecivil, who are, well, not civil. People like this drown out real, meaningful discussion which could lead to effective legislation. The only discussion we get is "enjoy your kids being slaughtered" kind of stuff. So stay classy, I guess.

This "law" will make criminals out of citizens.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Concussion

Feb-24-14 9:13 AM

May I also point out that "Letsbecivil" is arguing with emotion while everyone else is arguing with facts.

Emotion is what you argue with when you have no logical argument. This is why "letsbecivil" is deliberately trying to obscure or omit the facts, because there is no rational logical reason for his/her position other than "feelings".

Here's a fact; Nationally,the NRA has a 45% higher approval rating than Congress.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

letsbecivil

Feb-24-14 9:21 AM

I guess what I just can't fathom is this. Why do you people feel the need to protect gun/ammo manufacturers? Why do you think it is our 'right' to own weapons that can inflict mass injuries/fatalities? Why do you defend your 'right to protect yourself' when there is minimal threat? The public good should be the foremost policy. The protection of our children should be foremost. Not some archaic reference to the Constitution which had no basis for reference of advanced firearm technology.

The gun lobby has a lot of money and has the ability to skew your logic with constant manipulation and rhetoric. All I ask is that you use common sense and critical thought process to look at this.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 17 of 17 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web