Gun-toting senator pushes gun safety bill (NY State Senator)

[shadowrider]

ALBANY – Lawmakers use props all the time to promote some bill.

But Sen. Eric Adams, a Brooklyn Democrat, took that practice a step further Wednesday: he brought a semi-automatic assault rifle, bullet clips and even some undercover video shot of himself buying the weaponry at some Albany-area gun shops.

With a state trooper standing guard in an adjacent room and under orders not to bring live ammunition into the Capitol, Adams used the rifle show-and-tell to push his legislation to ban bullet magazines that can carry up to 30 rounds.

--snip--

Adams, a former New York City police captain who owns three guns himself, said the larger clips are too dangerous and can permit terrorists or others to kill and injure large numbers of people before having to re-load.

--snip--

Adams said he is a Second Amendment supporter. “This is not an anti-gun ownership bill,’’ Adams said.

http://blogs.buffalonews.com/politics_now/2011/03/gun-toting-senator-pushes-gun-safety-bill.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+typepad%2Fbuffalonews%2Fpolitics_now+%28Politics+Now%29

Remember, "gun control" is now called "gun safety"

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

1. so a 29 round magazine is OK?

[shadowrider]

2. Just wait, sooner or later, 10 will become the new 30 n/t

[Katya Mullethov]

3. No honest man needs more than five

He owns guns and hunts , cut him some slack .

[jpak]

5. Right on

now you're talkin'

yup

[Katya Mullethov]

8. Shall I continue ?

I speak "Sportsman" quite well .

[jpak]

4. Democrats have more sense than the NRA and the GOP - gun-toting GOP teabaggers suck

yup

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

9. So as long as I'm a Democrat, I can tote my gun with your blessing... GREAT!

yup

[Katya Mullethov]

23. Row well

And live

[Remmah2]

6. Adams is promoting total gun registration in NY.

http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S2994-2011

He sponsored the above bill.

NY gov is blowing smoke. State is broke, budget is due April 1. This is a grandstanding distraction from the real business that needs to get done in the state. What next home visits from the gun registration police? Fahrenheit .357?


Adams contribution to "gun safety".
"There are no First Amendment rights in your household".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qKkD75Qo_4&feature=player_embedded

[benEzra]

7. This is the same legislature in which some authoritarian idiot

recently introduced a bill to require license plates on bicycles.

http://www.wivb.com/dpp/news/politics/Anger-over-proposed-bike-license-plates

Of course, since bicycles kill more people than rifles do (including rifles with scawwy "clips" and handgrips that stick out), I suppose one proposal is no more idiotic than the other...

[rl6214]

10. Yup, like it's happened so many times before

"Adams, a former New York City police captain who owns three guns himself, said the larger clips are too dangerous and can permit terrorists or others to kill and injure large numbers of people before having to re-load"

How many terrorist attacks have we had with the dangerous assault weapons and hi capacity 'clips'

[Atypical Liberal]

20. Don't give them any ideas

For a long time I have figured this would be the perfect terrorist attack.

Send a group of guys over here with some cash. Send them to gun shows to buy semi-automatic assault rifles, magazines, and ammo. Then head to the local mall, take up strategic locations, and mow down as many people as you can.

Later, issue a press release saying copycat cells are ready to repeat the act in other malls across the country. It doesn't even have to be true.

Two huge things accomplished: 1) Massive economic impact as mall attendance plummets. 2) More civil liberties erosions as firearm and other laws grow more restrictive.

The main reason I suspect this has not happened is because I don't think Al Quaeda is actually trying to attack average Americans. I think they are specifically targeting corporate America as they are the people who have been directing America's meddling in Middle Eastern affairs for the last 50 years.

If "terrorists" really wanted to attack average Americans, they would have done so by now. Instead, they have attacked military, corporate, and government interests.

[Euromutt]

31. I agree it's unlikely to happen, but for different reasons

Terrorist outfits are, by their nature, publicity seekers, and in the case of an international network like al-Qaeda, they are playing to the audience in their home countries at least as much as they are playing to their targets. That means their selected targets have to have some significance to the "Arab street" (if you'll pardon my exhuming that term). Most of the world has heard of, and seen images of, the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, along with the White House and the Capitol Building. Very few people outside North America and maybe western Europe have heard of the Mall of America ("Bloomington, Minnesota? Where's that?!"), let alone any other large mall in the U.S.

Essentially, al-Qaeda has to hit internationally known landmarks (to make it significant to their home audience), while also inflicting a large number of casualties (to inflict terror on Americans). If they could destroy the Hollywood sign, the Golden Gate bridge, the Statue of Liberty, even Niagara Falls or Mount Rushmore, that would meet the first criterium, but probably not the second. Attacking shopping malls would satisfy the second, but not the first.

[Atypical Liberal]

33. I disagree.

Look at the amount of terror those DC snipers were able to effect. If the "terrorists" were really interested in inflicting terror on Americans, it would be trivially easy to do. Just like they went and shot up that hotel over in India a year or so ago. Except that, also, was targeted at rich people.

I really don't think Al Queda is a threat to the average American as they have been presented by our government. I think they are mostly at odds with the American plutocracy that has been meddling in middle eastern affairs for the last 50 years.

[Hoyt]

11. There ya go. Hard to argue with that, but I'm sure gun folks will.

[X_Digger]

12. It's easy to argue with knee-jerk, do-nothing laws..

We had a decade to prove that restrictions such as these would have an impact on *something*..

zip. nada. zero.

*yawn*

And attempting to frame something as 'reasonable' doesn't make it so.

[Hoyt]

13. The only reason they are "do nothing" is that the gun hoarders want more and more and more carrying.

They can't live within the spirit of laws, they have to abuse them right up to the edge. You tell me how you think that is rational?

[Ken_Fish]

14. I assume the 10 years of data with millions of people CCW

means nothing. The one that shows CCW holders as a group offend less than police and a fraction of the population at large.

Seriously, the antis lost. Finding one in the shoes of wade or board of ed is difficult. But hey we moved on from there.

People who care about the spirit of the law are not the problem. The problem is that the anti crowd cant see past the gun (or does not want to give up their cause) to address core issues.

[X_Digger]

15. Researchers could find no credible effect..

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_final2004.pdf

The Ban’s Reauthorization or Expiration Could Affect Gunshot Victimizations, But Predictions are Tenuous

Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban. LCMs are involved in a more substantial share of gun crimes, but it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity limit) without reloading.

[Hoyt]

17. Doesn't matter, XD. If they ban 30 shot magazines, the gunguys will demand 29 shot ones.

The gun guys will always push the envelope to own/carry as deadly a weapon as they can afford to feed their bad habit. The manufacturers will gladly produce it, right up to the letter of the law (and they'll pay attorneys to help them determine the edge). Manufactures and gun shops -- with names like Impact Arms -- will spend a lot more advertising to those obsessed with guns.

The gunguys will say the laws are ineffective. But is it really the law, or those feeding their sick/bad habit?

One of these days we are going to have to get serious about guns.

[X_Digger]

18. Did you actually read what I posted?

Let me post the most relevant bit-

"it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity limit) without reloading."

[Ken_Fish]

19. That day was 15 years ago. That day has passed. One day the antis

may get serious about the root cause of violence. But that is harder than passing restrictions that make no difference in the real world.

Its the law, the law says the antis lost, twice. No party will back the anti position, no court will uphold it.

Its done.

[Atypical Liberal]

21. "push the envelope" = "obey the law"

The gun guys will always push the envelope to own/carry as deadly a weapon as they can afford to feed their bad habit. The manufacturers will gladly produce it, right up to the letter of the law (and they'll pay attorneys to help them determine the edge). Manufactures and gun shops -- with names like Impact Arms -- will spend a lot more advertising to those obsessed with guns.

In other words, they *shocker* obey the law.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[X_Digger]

24. Are you the magic arbiter of true intent?

I mean, those senators and congresspeople.. they couldn't write what they really wanted, they what, left it up to you to tell us what they really wanted?

You do realize how ridiculous your statement sounds, right?

[Hoyt]

28. Would you or other public carriers not run out and buy 29 capacity mags, if that were the law?

[X_Digger]

32. Answer the question, please.

What is the secret intent of the law that lawmakers couldn't express, that you are supposed to be the arbiter of?

[GreenStormCloud]

25. If the speed limit is 70, do you drive 35? N/T

[Hoyt]

29. In some places I do, actually. Other places 75/80. But I don't carry out of my house.

[GreenStormCloud]

34. 75/80 is breaking the law. N/T

[PavePusher]

26. Your insinuations and accusations are noted....

and your credibility is still zero.

Bu-bye now....

[Straw Man]

16. Yeah, isn't it enough that they have rights?

Now they actually want to excercise them. Sheesh. The nerve!

[PavePusher]

27. "the spirit of the laws"

Please, feel free to let us know what that is. We await your elucidation.

[Ter]

30. Wasn't Adams the one who a vicious race-baiter in the 90's?

Somehow he was never fired.