Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

That form is some fethed up gak man. Wow.

 CptJake wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
That picture is legit Jake. Das Gestapo is already on the move in New York.

I just know I cannot personally verify it as legit, thought it does appear so. I did do a quick Snopes search and could not find anything on it.

I tried to verify it the other day and I could not. I'm not saying it's fake but it's pretty iffy - at the time if you googled the text it only shows up on the derpwing sites which is usually a pretty good sign it's made up nonsense. There are a lot of fishy elements to it; for example, what's in the letter doesn't represent what the law actually says. Specifically the second sentence says "Rifles and shotguns capable of holding more than 5 rounds of ammunition are unlawful to posess in New York City, as per code 10-306(b). That's not actually what that code section says, the actual code section shows a magazine ban for anything in excess of 5 rounds.

If you google that address, it's the NYC clerks office, which is legit. You eventually get to the NYPD License Division (it's not called "NYPD RIFLE & SHOTGUN" officially but that doesn't mean anything) which leads you to this PDF:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/permits/ny_safe_act_letter_re_lcafd_2013_05_v9.pdf

This PDF reflects the actual law; which bans mags that have a capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and indicates any such mags need to be pinned (like California) to be lawful.

I think this letter is either pure BS conjured by someone out of whole cloth (90% chance), or some clerk overreaching unlawfully (9%), or how the NYPD is actually enforcing this law (1%).

But I too could find nothing definitive either way.

 daedalus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

This is kind of entertaining because the same people who are supporting voter ID laws are against having to register guns. Don't you just love hippocracy...

Not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison.

But, in your case, gun registration/license lead to confiscation... right?

I think he's genuinely assuming that if you're against gun control, then you're a stereotypical Republican, down to every last stereotype.

Not at all, this is my experiences, and what I am seeing (I wasn't accusing him, I don't know his opinion on that subject, it's just that from the people I know the ones who hate the idea of having to register guns and the people who think we should have voter ID laws have a very large overlap).

Sorry about being late on this, wasn't at my PC.

I see.

For whatever it's worth, I dislike voter id. I dislike increased gun control. I haven't voted in years. I don't actually own any guns.

I have no personal motive behind my beliefs. They are simply how I feel, while trying to be as objective as possible.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

This is kind of entertaining because the same people who are supporting voter ID laws are against having to register guns. Don't you just love hippocracy...

Not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison.

But, in your case, gun registration/license lead to confiscation... right?

I think he's genuinely assuming that if you're against gun control, then you're a stereotypical Republican, down to every last stereotype.

Not at all, this is my experiences, and what I am seeing (I wasn't accusing him, I don't know his opinion on that subject, it's just that from the people I know the ones who hate the idea of having to register guns and the people who think we should have voter ID laws have a very large overlap).

Sorry about being late on this, wasn't at my PC.

But it isn't really an apt comparison.

In any case, there's plenty of folks are okay with increase gun-control and Opposes voterID laws.

 whembly wrote:
In any case, there's plenty of folks are okay with increase gun-control and Opposes voterID laws.

I think I was in this camp until recently. I found Manchu's arguments on how those are intrinsically opposite ideas in base; compelling enough that I don't think I am anymore - that was the analogy that I needed to see where pro-gun people's arguments are coming from. I do think that as a country we are alarmingly comfortable with levels of gun violence not seen elsewhere in first world nations and I feel we shouldld address that but I'm not really sure how.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
In any case, there's plenty of folks are okay with increase gun-control and Opposes voterID laws.

I think I was in this camp until recently. I found Manchu's arguments on how those are intrinsically opposite ideas in base; compelling enough that I don't think I am anymore - that was the analogy that I needed to see where pro-gun people's arguments are coming from. I do think that as a country we are alarmingly comfortable with levels of gun violence not seen elsewhere in first world nations and I feel we shouldld address that but I'm not really sure how.

He does make a great argument... However I still think its flawed in the sense that you still must go through a background check to purchase guns. Most voterIDs laws requires you to bring a fething state approved ID to the polls.

Manchu's arguments works much better for the big changes that are happening in places like NC (no Sunday voting, no college I'd, etc...)

That's why I don't really think its a good apples-to-apples comparison in the first place.

 daedalus wrote:


I had a explanation for why this won't work, at best. Unfortunately, I left work without clicking submit and don't feel like retyping it.

tl;dr, people sometimes just "go crazy". They will be crazy if they have to wait any period of time to enact their craziness. If anything, that'll only give them time to plan and something to look forward to.

Your plan seems sound, but will fail because you're thinking like a reasonable person, who gets angry, not like a crazy person, who is genuinely crazy enough to hurt people.

My question is this: Why does it appear that there are more crazy people here than elsewhere?

bit oT since we seem to have moved on to voter IDs but I feel this statement is all kinds of horse gak.

Since roughly 20% of the population will undergo some kind of psychosis at some point in their life i think separating people into crazy and normal is quite untrue.One in five people you meet is a "crazy". I'd think quite a lot of "passion" killings could legitimately regarded as due to a temporary psychosis, I mean what rational person wants to kill another ? Recognising this could not be good for our current court system, but never the less I think recognising this fact could go to great lengths to debunk fear of the "crazies".

That picture of the gun confiscation form is legit, its actually several weeks old news - at least in the firearms media. You wont find it on snopes because snopes is a site run by progressives, so of course stuff like this gets buried. California is looking at implementing this program too btw. This is also not the first time this has happened in my old hometown. Registration in the city resulted in confiscation during the early 70's of "Saturday Night Specials". The letter is enforcement of a City Council law passed in the '90s btw.

Registration has never lead to removal of illegal guns: criminals dont register.

This is funny Ouze and d-usa over on the thread about the NSA constitutionality assured me that no one was going to come for our guns and that registration was what all the cool kids were doing.

jamesk1973 wrote:
This is funny Ouze and d-usa over on the thread about the NSA constitutionality assured me that no one was going to come for our guns and that registration was what all the cool kids were doing.

And firearm ownership is still not illegal, despite what the note says and the government is not taking these weapons away from anybody.

I could go on and actually explain why you are wrong, but anybody that has read your posts would understand that it would be a waste of bandwidth.

 d-usa wrote:


And firearm ownership is still not illegal, despite what the note says and the government is not taking these weapons away from anybody.

At what part in the letter did you lose your ability to comprehend what you read?

Was is the part that said, "turn in your firearms" or that part that said, "our records show that you possess a firearm"?

I'll save you the trouble. The letter is displayed on page 7 of this thread.


Oops! Page 9 of this thread.

jamesk1973 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


And firearm ownership is still not illegal, despite what the note says and the government is not taking these weapons away from anybody.

At what part in the letter did you lose your ability to comprehend what you read?

Was is the part that said, "turn in your firearms" or that part that said, "our records show that you possess a firearm"?

I'll save you the trouble. The letter is displayed on page 7 of this thread.

You must have missed the part that said you can remove the firearm from the City of New York and provide a utility bill and address of where the firearm is being stored.

Also, Ouze there is apparently a Rifle and Shotgun section, which might give more validity to this form, but who knows. The problem is that the validity of the story doesn't seem to pop up on anything more than some fringe new sites dedicated to guns etc... Not even Fox or MSNBC has this story...
http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/permits/rifle_licensing_information.shtml

Edit: Wtf letter are you talking about on page 7

Edit: I'm also trying to figure out why people in New York need a rifle or a shotgun. I can see storing it there if you're a hunter.

jamesk1973 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


And firearm ownership is still not illegal, despite what the note says and the government is not taking these weapons away from anybody.

At what part in the letter did you lose your ability to comprehend what you read?

Probably the part where it didn't say "we are going to take your guns!" anywhere.

Was is the part that said, "turn in your firearms" or that part that said, "our records show that you registered a firearm"?

It was multiple parts that actually didn't say "we are going to take your guns away".

It actually has three separate options that don't say "we are going to take your guns away":

1) Put your weapon in storage with the NYPD, get an invoice number, and then either move your weapon (that you still own because the government didn't take it away from you) out of city limits and still own it or sell it (awesome, capitalism!). When I went to college in redneck pro-gun western Oklahoma the campus police all stored our weapons for us. And they even gave them back to us whenever we wanted to go hunting or shooting at the range! Main thing to notice is that nobody took your weapon from you.

2) Go ahead and move the weapon out of city limits. You still own it, you can still shoot it, once again nobody has taken your weapon from you

3) Have it modified to hold 5 rounds or less.

Yet nowhere on that form does it say "you can't have guns, we are talking all your guns, you will not remember the nazi's and the Jews while we take your guns".

I could draw you a picture of how it doesn't say that, but my finger painting skills are not that great this morning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alfndrate wrote:

Also, Ouze there is apparently a Rifle and Shotgun section, which might give more validity to this form, but who knows. The problem is that the validity of the story doesn't seem to pop up on anything more than some fringe new sites dedicated to guns etc... Not even Fox or MSNBC has this story...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/05/nypd-targets-owners-multi-clip-shotguns-rifles/

 Alfndrate wrote:
Edit: I'm also trying to figure out why people in New York need a rifle or a shotgun. I can see storing it there if you're a hunter.

Why do you need overpriced plastic fighting mens?

 d-usa wrote:


It was multiple parts that actually didn't say "we are going to take your guns away".

It actually has three separate options that don't say "we are going to take your guns away":

1) Put your weapon in storage with the NYPD, get an invoice number, and then either move your weapon (that you still own because the government didn't take it away from you) out of city limits and still own it or sell it (awesome, capitalism!). When I went to college in redneck pro-gun western Oklahoma the campus police all stored our weapons for us. And they even gave them back to us whenever we wanted to go hunting or shooting at the range! Main thing to notice is that nobody took your weapon from you.

2) Go ahead and move the weapon out of city limits. You still own it, you can still shoot it, once again nobody has taken your weapon from you

3) Have it modified to hold 5 rounds or less.

1. Actually the term used is, "surrender" not "turn in for storage to be checked back out at your convenience." I do find it kind of them to allow you to sell or remove from the city your own private property.

2. Yes. This is a legit strategy for those who are not tied down in the city for work or family reasons. Of course, it pretty much gaks on the whole, "...keep and bear..." and "...shall not be infringed" part of the 2nd Amendment.

3. Again, strays into the whole private property is mine not the government's argument.

Let's think about this.

No, they are not overtly saying, "we are here for you guns".

Rather they are using the force of law to execute the most passive-aggressive violation of the 2nd and 4th Amendments yet.

But it's okay because it's what the popular vote wanted.

Maybe it's not reading comprehension that is failing you as much a critical thinking.

Hey, I can understand that people who have ignored the law for three years might have problems with reading comprehension. But I'm not really upset at a letter that doesn't take away your guns and forces people to follow a law that they have ignored since 2010.

And now it's a 4th amendment violation as well? Life must be horrible in that head of hours.

Have you tried art-therapy? Painting pictures can resolve a lot of those paranoid feelings. Maybe you can draw a picture of the NYPD in SS uniforms disarming Jews.

d-usa

It's clear that nothing you type will change my perception of the course this country is on.

It's also clear that nothing I type is going to change your perception of the course this country is on.

For my part let me say, I really, really hope you are right. I hope I die and old free man. I hope you are right and I die an old free man who really was just paranoid.

Because the other option is bad.

The problem is that your "perception of the course this country is on" is based upon such flawed data that yesterday you Godwinned a thread and were not even remotely correct about how things happened.

jamesk1973 wrote:This is funny Ouze and d-usa over on the thread about the NSA constitutionality assured me that no one was going to come for our guns and that registration was what all the cool kids were doing.

I never said any damn thing about the latter element of your statement. Stop making things up because you think it makes a better argument. I'm not in favor of registration and have never espoused it. I just don't agree with the idea registration always leads to confiscation.

 Spacemanvic wrote:
That picture of the gun confiscation form is legit, its actually several weeks old news - at least in the firearms media. .

Yeah, I did mention earlier I've only seen it referenced in the derposphere.

I repeat what I said earlier: I have no confidence that this letter is real, and if it is real, that this is actually how it's being enforced by the NYPD and not the product of an overreaching clerk misinterpreting the clear language of the statute. Again, if you read the law on the NYPD licensing section it's pretty unambiguous that it applies, as the law says, to ammunition feeding devices - a magazine capacity restriction. I mean, even The Blaze uses lots of weasel words when describing it. "Allegedly", "reportedly", "it wasn't clear", and so on. All of these sites seem to link back to the same original source article. They sent out hundreds of these, supposedly - not one other person got one? The address on the letter doesn't match the actual address used by the license division, I just noticed.

I think it's probably fake.

 Kanluwen wrote:
The problem is that your "perception of the course this country is on" is based upon such flawed data that yesterday you Godwinned a thread and were not even remotely correct about how things happened.

What flawed data is that? What data do you have?

Remotely correct about how WHAT things happened?

We can agree to have different opinions.

We can also agree that I will continue to point out how wrong you are when you stray away from opinion and present stuff as facts, especially when your facts are completely wrong.

Homework for today: draw me a diagram of facts and opinions detailing the differences between the two.

"Unfounded assertions."

"You're wrong."

"How?"

"You tell me."

I love Dakka.

 d-usa wrote:
We can agree to have different opinions.

We can also agree that I will continue to point out how wrong you are when you stray away from opinion and present stuff as facts, especially when your facts are completely wrong.

Homework for today: draw me a diagram of facts and opinions detailing the differences between the two.

What facts did I get wrong?

Everything?

Sadly I "lost my gun" in an "unfortunate boating accident".

 d-usa wrote:
Everything?

Now let's not be pithy. Name some facts that I got wrong.

Most of my posts are heavy on opinion.

We would have to cross reference a lot of threads to get a comprehensive review of wrong facts. It would also help if you drew that diagram to help me make sure you understand the difference between fact and opinion. I was promised a picture a few threads ago and I'm still waiting, even though I drew a picture for you...

On this page one you got Ouze's statements wrong and you kept on presenting a letter as a fact that gun grabbing is taking place.

I consider it gun grabbing when your options are; turn it in, get it out of the area, or have it modified from factory specifications.

It is not forceful gun grabbing by any means but I PERCEIVE it as gun grabbing. It is my OPINION.

In your OPINION it is completely reasonable and not gun grabbing for the government to give you three options (concerning your private property) of; turn it in, get it out of the area, or have it modified from factory specifications.

As for the Ouze statement, I did have a moment of hyperbole. However, in general he is such a disagreeable fether who knows exactly what he espouses?




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, what is the accent that you have?

I watched your Power Dissolver video and I detected a trace accent.

They have a 4th option, and it is the one not mentioned and is the one they didn't exercise.

Instead of sending letters to 500 people who have spend the last three years breaking the law and giving them the opportunity to finally get them either in compliance or out of the city they could have actually executed warrants on these 500 people and confiscated their illegal weapons and destroyed them. And even that wouldn't have been "gun grabbing" since these people are willfully ignoring the law.

The fact that they are giving them the chance to get rid of their crime after three years of breaking the law is what makes your opinion that this is gun grabbing laughable.