magicalfreddiemercury 15.01.2013 16:45 |
There was a bipartisan vote approving new restrictions last night in the state senate, and there was a rather hotly debated session about it today in the state assembly, but the New York Governor's "7-Point Plan" to restrict the sale and use of assault weapons and ammunition has passed. Here's Governor Cuomo's plan as he outlined it - 1. Enact toughest assault weapon ban in nation 2. Close private sale loophole 3. Ban high capacity magazines 4. Enact tougher penalties for gun crimes (school zone violations, felons possessing, etc) 5. Keep guns from the mentally ill 6. Ban direct internet sales of ammo 7. Create state NICS check on all ammo purchase. And here's a more detailed description of it by the Huffington Post - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-glaser/cuomo-gun-safety-legislation_b_2476419.html While there are new requirements included for therapists to report patients who threaten to hurt themselves or others, I'm hoping much more will be done in the very near future to address the needs of the mentally ill and their families - in gun-related ways and otherwise. What do y'all think? Too much? Not enough? |
matt z 15.01.2013 19:22 |
Does this mean that therapists and or doctors now must violate the code of confidentiality? Ohhh man, they ALWAYS sneak something into legislation. ...assholes |
magicalfreddiemercury 15.01.2013 19:36 |
There are exceptions to the doctor-patient confidentiality laws - like when child abuse is suspected. I would think, though I don't know for sure, that public safety might be an exception as well. |
greaserkat 15.01.2013 19:36 |
matt z wrote: Does this mean that therapists and or doctors now must violate the code of confidentiality? Ohhh man, they ALWAYS sneak something into legislation. ...assholesIf the therapist or doctor believes that based on the information the patient has provided, that the patient is a danger to him/herself or others, then confidentiality can and must be broken to ensure safety |
inu-liger 15.01.2013 20:32 |
greaserkat wrote:Agreed. As long as well that steps are also taken to ensure there is a boundary kept on publicizing names or protecting the identity of the patient, as determined on a case by case basis, to keep certain stigmas and mob mentalities as low as possible.matt z wrote: Does this mean that therapists and or doctors now must violate the code of confidentiality? Ohhh man, they ALWAYS sneak something into legislation. ...assholesIf the therapist or doctor believes that based on the information the patient has provided, that the patient is a danger to him/herself or others, then confidentiality can and must be broken to ensure safety I have a question for you Matt: Is it not also invasive in your view then for a doctor to yank a patient's driver's license when it's determined that due to poor health conditions they are not fit to drive? Surely that's also breaking confidentiality when the doctor is just doing their job to help protect the public from high risk drivers, then? |
matt z 16.01.2013 20:05 |
Look it up. *hypocrite that he was, Jefferson authored a document stating that in the event of government corruption it is the DUTY of the governed to overthrow it. This suggested further legislation is a step towards more STALINISTIC action.... Last step of containing people is to completely disarm them |
Holly2003 17.01.2013 16:38 |
matt z wrote: Look it up. *hypocrite that he was, Jefferson authored a document stating that in the event of government corruption it is the DUTY of the governed to overthrow it. This suggested further legislation is a step towards more STALINISTIC action.... Last step of containing people is to completely disarm them ffs grow up. I'll bet if you were made to walk throught that school looking at the dead bodies of those little kids you'd change your fucking tune very quickly. |
The Real Wizard 17.01.2013 17:39 |
Phew, thank goodness someone said it. USA - the place where people want no gun regulation, but insist on marriage and vagina regulation |
thomasquinn 32989 18.01.2013 04:47 |
matt z wrote: Look it up. *hypocrite that he was, Jefferson authored a document stating that in the event of government corruption it is the DUTY of the governed to overthrow it. This suggested further legislation is a step towards more STALINISTIC action.... Last step of containing people is to completely disarm them1) don't give me fake Jefferson-quotes (or in this case, fake Jefferson paraphrasings). Monticello.org has a full-time job debunking fraudulent quotes nowadays, and nearly all of them originate from gun-fanatics. link 2) Look up the word "stalinist" before you throw it around like some McCarthyist foaming at the mouth. Have you been rounded up and tortured/"interrogated" by the secret service, and denied the writ of habeas corpus yet? No? Then Stalinism is probably not involved. 3) The entire march of civilization from the early middle ages to the present has been a steady movement towards disarming the populace. An armed populace is not a means to guarantee freedom, it's a means towards feudal society, where the best armed and most ruthless citizens oppress the others. |
thomasquinn 32989 18.01.2013 04:48 |
On topic: I think New York has made a great first step here. I eagerly await federal legislation! |
Donna13 18.01.2013 14:30 |
I tried using the search mechanism on the Monticello website and it did not work for me. So I don't see how a person can access their collection at this point. They do list a bunch of the most famous quotes, but Thomas Jefferson was writing all the time and the database of his writings must be pretty large. I read portions of it some time ago. Anyway, I am surprised by your comments, TQ. Because there are plenty of real quotes from the thinking of the time (various opinions among those who worked to ratify the Constitution). I realize the writing is not easy to understand because they wrote in a different style than we are used to today. Some of the expressions are antiquated and there is also symbolism in some of the writing (i.e. citizens being "armed" with certain abilities such as juries and representative government). So any person trying to understand any particular quote might need assistance. However, some quotes are pretty easy to understand: Jefferson's idea that walking with a gun was the best form of exercise in his opinion. But your point number 3, I would say is completely off the mark with respect to the history of the United States. I think that gun control does not mean taking guns away from the populace. In the United States gun owners are protected by the Constitution, which is a federal document. However, modifying the ability to get a gun quickly or to buy certain types of guns, is more additional regulation than a major change of gun rights. It is quite a process to get a license to drive a car here and this is not a way to deny the use of cars, but just to promote greater levels of safety. The new gun laws will also help to promote safety. But they will not disarm the citizens in the United States. To do that, we would need to amend the Constitution. |
magicalfreddiemercury 19.01.2013 08:45 |
matt z wrote: Last step of containing people is to completely disarm themUnless the 2nd amendment is overturned, which is not going to happen, US citizens will never lose the right to own a weapon, so this isn’t about completely disarming anyone. It’s about the type of weapon and ammunition the average citizen should be allowed to own. It’s about registering weapons and about background checks that will, hopefully, keep some of these weapons out of the hands of criminals or the mentally ill. It’s about public safety, not about taking away individual rights. However, buying up all the assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition in a store – and there has been a run on these things of late – seems to be about pushing a ‘right’ well past its intent. The Real Wizard wrote: Phew, thank goodness someone said it. USA - the place where people want no gun regulation, but insist on marriage and vagina regulation.Correction – USA – the place where HALF the people want no gun regulation, but insist on marriage and vagina regulation. And, btw, those last two issues could each be their own full-length thread. How disturbing is that?! Donna13 wrote: It is quite a process to get a license to drive a car here and this is not a way to deny the use of cars, but just to promote greater levels of safety. The new gun laws will also help to promote safety. But they will not disarm the citizens in the United States. To do that, we would need to amend the Constitution.Exactly, Donna. The panic gripping gun enthusiasts is unnecessary since a Constitutional amendment is not even a consideration. Though, just as an aside - and possibly in direct opposition to my comment above to matt - I know ‘abortion’ isn’t granted by constitutional amendment, but many US states regularly chip away at the ability of women to access them – like in Mississippi where the last clinic is about to have its doors closed and locked by new state regulations. They haven’t outlawed abortion because the Supreme Court says it’s illegal to do so. However, they can make laws so impossible to follow, that providers cannot function in the state, which, by extension, strips Mississippi citizens of the ability to access that perfectly legal procedure. It can be the 'slippery slope' so many fear. |
thomasquinn 32989 19.01.2013 10:00 |
Donna13 wrote: I tried using the search mechanism on the Monticello website and it did not work for me. So I don't see how a person can access their collection at this point. They do list a bunch of the most famous quotes, but Thomas Jefferson was writing all the time and the database of his writings must be pretty large. I read portions of it some time ago. Anyway, I am surprised by your comments, TQ. Because there are plenty of real quotes from the thinking of the time (various opinions among those who worked to ratify the Constitution). I realize the writing is not easy to understand because they wrote in a different style than we are used to today. Some of the expressions are antiquated and there is also symbolism in some of the writing (i.e. citizens being "armed" with certain abilities such as juries and representative government). So any person trying to understand any particular quote might need assistance. However, some quotes are pretty easy to understand: Jefferson's idea that walking with a gun was the best form of exercise in his opinion. But your point number 3, I would say is completely off the mark with respect to the history of the United States. I think that gun control does not mean taking guns away from the populace. In the United States gun owners are protected by the Constitution, which is a federal document. However, modifying the ability to get a gun quickly or to buy certain types of guns, is more additional regulation than a major change of gun rights. It is quite a process to get a license to drive a car here and this is not a way to deny the use of cars, but just to promote greater levels of safety. The new gun laws will also help to promote safety. But they will not disarm the citizens in the United States. To do that, we would need to amend the Constitution.link What annoys me is that people read the opinions of the people who drew up the constitution with modern eyes, not with 18th century ones. When they thought of citizens being armed, they had in mind the weapons of the day - smoothbore muskets. These weapons are practically useless unless they are used in large quantities, and so the founding fathers naturally combined the concept of gun ownership with the concept of an organized citizen militia. These militias were superseded by the National Guard, which means the Second Amendment as it now stands only represents half of what the founding fathers intended: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". The Second Amendment is a rump law, the remnant of a complete law that has been superseded by later legislation, and as it stands, it is being abused for purposes it was not intended to serve, e.g. the private ownership of assault weapons, (sub) machine guns, etc. |
Donna13 19.01.2013 11:04 |
If we could magically have them visit us today (these founding fathers), I think they would be most shocked that we let the situation get so bad without doing anything about it. |
thomasquinn 32989 19.01.2013 12:22 |
That we can agree on. |
inu-liger 19.01.2013 15:08 |
Donna13 wrote: If we could magically have them visit us today (these founding fathers), I think they would be most shocked that we let the situation get so bad without doing anything about it.Get on that time machine then!! :D But seriously, I agree, they definitely would be shocked at that, but I think they would also be equally shocked how bad some aspects of American culture has become too... |
7Innuendo7 19.01.2013 20:08 |
It's not about 'Constitutional rights' -- the Founders knowingly ratified a document that denied women the right to vote, recognized the institution of slavery, and declared native Americans less than human -- and the militia referred to in the 2nd Amendment is now known as the National Guard. Times change, perspectives change, behaviors change, and the NY legislation seems completely appropriate. The earlier poster's point about a constitutional amendment abridging or removing the 2nd Amendment, not being on the table is a strong one indeed. However, the real issue behind the controversy imho is the profit of gun manufacturers. I would love to see Sasha and Malia Obama host a press conference and say, "Wayne LaPierre, you're a gun manufacturer's BITCH!" "Put Out the Fire" comes to mind. Ozzy Osbourne said something to the effect of 'if guns don't kill people, then why don't we send unarmed soldiers to war? Shhhhhhaaaaaarrooooonnnnnnnn!!!!' |
The Real Wizard 19.01.2013 22:01 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: Correction – USA – the place where HALF the people want no gun regulation, but insist on marriage and vagina regulation.I knew someone would be all pedantic over this :-) |
The Real Wizard 19.01.2013 22:03 |
7Innuendo7 wrote: It's not about 'Constitutional rights' -- the Founders knowingly ratified a document that denied women the right to vote, recognized the institution of slavery, and declared native Americans less than human -- and the militia referred to in the 2nd Amendment is now known as the National Guard.If you're going to talk to Republicans about this, you're going to have to stop using facts as parts of your arguments. They don't work. |
magicalfreddiemercury 20.01.2013 08:03 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Ah, but you see, if I were part of the half that insists on non-regulation of guns but strict regulation of marriage and vaginas, I'd be more than happy to let the original statement stand. However, I stand in opposition - as if that comes as a surprise - and felt the distinction needed to be made. Of course, I know you'd never purposely lump all Americans into one category...this was merely a typo. And you're forgiven for it. :-)magicalfreddiemercury wrote: Correction – USA – the place where HALF the people want no gun regulation, but insist on marriage and vagina regulation.I knew someone would be all pedantic over this :-) |
GratefulFan 28.01.2013 12:07 |
I'm so often struck by the social pressures on Americans on this issue. The fear card is played with great finesse and great conviction from so many sides. I saw this this weekend and felt only immense sorrow for a culture so steeped in the idea of the threat of imminent violence that they spend decades vigilantly guarding against what the vast majority will never see in their entire lives. So many can't appreciate how much the literal and metaphorical weight of that constant cold steel at their hip changes them as a people. link |
magicalfreddiemercury 04.04.2013 07:08 |
New York was first, then Colorado. Now Connecticut has passed new gun regulations. The governor has only to sign it into law and there's no question about his intent to do just that. Connecticut is the state where the most recent US gun massacre took place. It's where 26 people - mainly 5 and 6 year old children - were shot down in an elementary school by a mentally unstable 20 year old whose gun-collecting mother saw nothing wrong with not only taking him on trips to the shooting range but also leaving weapons and ammunition where he could get to them AND giving him gifts of cash with notes attached stating he should use the money to purchase his own guns. She was also the first to die that day when her son put four bullets into her head before heading out to kill defenseless babies and their teachers. This new legislation is being touted as 'the strongest gun control legislation in the country" and as a "terrific blueprint for how to do this in a comprehensive way". I am happy about these laws. I'm happy both parties came together - overwhelmingly, in this case - to pass the legislation. I'm not happy, however, that each of the states to pass new laws have focused mainly on the weapons themselves and how many ways owners must register them, and not directly on the mental health issues that have been at the heart of these recent mass shootings. (though there is reference - I just added it in an 'edit' note below) What's in the law? "In addition to an expansion of an existing ban on assault-style weapons to add more than 100 firearms, the bill requires background checks for all purchasers and bars the sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 bullets. Gun owners would need to undergo a background check to get a certificate required to buy cartridges, while those with a banned model or magazine would have to register with the state." What’s in the background check? What will they be checking for? They have not said. It is a criminal background check? Will there be a psychological evaluation performed as part of this check? If so, who would do the evaluation and how would we know if it would be thorough yet fair? And what happens to people who own a ‘banned model or magazine’? They register with the state…and…? Gun owners are livid and feel these regulations will make them into 'criminals' and 'victims'. One gun owner, who was part of a rally against the legislation, said the state had no business knowing what he owned and that "their authority does not extend into my house". His sentiments echo those of gun owners around the country. With such bipartisan support (the Senate voted 26-10 and the house voted 105-44) and a Democrat governor in this very ‘blue’ state, there's no chance the bill will be overturned at local levels, so gun-owners will have to try to get their fight in front of the Supreme Court if they expect anything to change - which I doubt they'll do. btw - there are six gun-makers in Connecticut and together they employ more than 7,000 people. All six have threatened to leave the state if (when) the new gun restrictions are signed into law. btw #2 - far fewer "gun-control" measures have passed around the US since the elementary school massacre than "gun-rights" laws - which not only grant greater access to weapons but also limit existing federal restrictions (believe it or not). Opinions? EDIT - A little piece of this legislation that I did not see before the governor signed it into law (which he did just moments ago) is this: "The bill allows school districts to require "mental health first aid" training for school personnel and creates a task force to examine the state's mental health system. Additionally, it alters state insurance regulations to beef up mental health care coverage." THIS, I think, is a very good start. |
magicalfreddiemercury 09.04.2013 15:17 |
I realize I'm replying to my own comments but I find this topic fascinating and so I can't help myself. I'm really looking forward to change, so each step towards that grabs my attention. Anyway - Harry Reid, the US Senate Majority Leader (Democrat and, btw, 2nd amendment supporter), has called for "an initial gun control vote" this Thursday. Fourteen Republicans, meanwhile, have threatened to filibuster any attempt to bring the issue to the floor. As President Obama said yesterday, it's not that they don't want to vote no. It's that they don't want anyone to vote at all. But wait, there's more... A counter-filibuster has been planned by pro gun control activists. That filibuster is set to take place on the steps of the Capitol when/if the Republican senators carry out their filibuster inside. The counter filibuster will consist of victims and survivors of gun violence reading the names of... are you sitting? ...over 3,300 Americans who have been lost to gun violence SINCE the December elementary school shooting that left all those babies dead. 3,300+ people have been killed by guns in the US in just under four months. If there is a counter filibuster, it will be the most horrifying one of all. |
The Real Wizard 09.04.2013 20:40 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: A counter-filibuster has been planned by pro gun control activists. That filibuster is set to take place on the steps of the Capitol when/if the Republican senators carry out their filibuster inside. The counter filibuster will consist of victims and survivors of gun violence reading the names of... are you sitting? ...over 3,300 Americans who have been lost to gun violence SINCE the December elementary school shooting that left all those babies dead. 3,300+ people have been killed by guns in the US in just under four months.Hopefully it's filmed. I'd actually like to see the looks on the faces of the right-wing nutjobs who feel gun regulations are an "infringement on their liberty." 30 thousand gun-related deaths a year in the US, but they need to regulate vaginas because they're concerned about life. What a truly fucked up country you live in. You have my sympathies. |
magicalfreddiemercury 10.04.2013 06:24 |
I would love it to be filmed. Latest news is the Republicans won't filibuster. Ha. We'll see what happens there. I hope the names are read regardless - and that the media watches. Closely. You're so right about the nut jobs' claim that this is an infringement on their liberty. They also screech a sky-is-falling warning that any gun regulation starts at the top of that overused 'slippery slope'. Of course, that only applies to gun rights. That, of course, in no way applies to abortion rights - those they can chip away at on a regular basis. So yes, government is 'too big' when it wants to regulate the sale and use of deadly weapons to average citizens but it is not big enough when it probes the wombs of American women and demands doctors lie to patients by reading specific statements regarding some fictitious connection between abortions and breast cancer. I could go on. You might think I'm blindly patriotic, however, when I say I still love this country and don't think it's as pathetic as this conversation implies. I will say this as well - what I think is wrong here is how a HUGE majority of the public sits back and curses at the TV, rants online or to each other about issues that affect us all, but doesn't get off its collective ass and make a point of telling elected officials exactly what is expected of them. The complacency, laziness, (there are so many adjectives I could use) of the average American is what embarrasses me about my country. Beyond that - I do love it (though I don't like it all the time) and I'm still proud to call it home. |