5 Positive Policies The SAFE Act Is Enforcing

What is the SAFE Act?

The NY SAFE Act (New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act of 2013) was passed into law by the New York State Legislature on January 15, 2013. This law, much like any law regarding the guns of the American people, caused much concern among many people. The law was passed in response to the recent Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newton, Connecticut. It is important to note that not all of the concerns regarding this new Democrat-backed piece of legislature are justified. I would like to demonstrate to you, through common sense, that several, if not all, of the policies passed are positive steps for the state and the country. Below is a list of requirements and restrictions this law is attempting to enforce in order to “Stop criminals and the dangerously mentally ill from buying a gun” as Governor Cuomo puts it.

5 Policies the SAFE Act Is Enforcing and the Reasons Why They Are Positive

  1. The SAFE Act bans the possession of any high-capacity magazines.

    The maximum capacity for all magazines will now be 10 rounds in the state of New York. It will also be a misdemeanor if a magazine is filled with more than 7 rounds of ammunition. This law applies everywhere in the state with the exception of at a gun range or while participating in a shooting competition. At these locations ten rounds may be loaded. Magazines with a capacity of more than ten rounds must be sold to an individual residing outside of the state or turned into local authorities within a year of when it was signed into law (January 15, 2014).The reasoning behind the banning of high-capacity ammunition is fairly clear. High-capacity ammunition is the most common trait associated with practically all mass shootings because they allow for an individual to unload an extreme and unnecessary amount of bullets at a target without any delay. By allowing the sale of these magazines to the public we allow future potentially dangerous individuals to access these high-capacity magazines with higher ease. Now, you may be thinking “But Manny, can’t these dangerous individuals just get their high-capacity magazines from the black market?” and to that I say…you might be right. However, this is an extra step that these individuals will have to take and it is also one that they will be prosecuted for. Therefore, by allowing the prosecution of these potential future offenders we can possibly even prosecute them before the catastrophe takes place.

  2. The SAFE Act will force ammunition and gun dealers, both public and private, to conduct background checks.

    Dealers will be required to report all sales to the state. Internet sales of ammunition will still be allowed, but they can only be shipped to a licensed dealer in the state for pickup. Background checks are yet another aspect of the bill that is clearly a positive requirement implemented by this new law. Background checks are an essential measure that should be enforced in order to prevent previous criminals and potentially dangerous people from purchasing a gun. Background checks for purchasing a gun typically take a few minutes to complete and have already prevented nearly 2 MILLION potentially dangerous people from purchasing a gun. Typically, criminals seeking to purchase a gun could evade a background check by purchasing the weapon from a private dealer at a gun show. This new law now requires private dealers to conduct background checks and removes this loophole used by criminals.

  3. The SAFE Act will require that all stolen guns be reported within 24 hours.

    Failure to do so will result in a misdemeanor. This is yet another requirement imposed that clearly makes sense. When a gun is stolen it is in the hands of a criminal. By reporting your gun stolen it allows local officials to immediately begin a search for the theft. If this search is successful it will immediately disarm and imprison the criminal and therefore potentially prevent him/her from committing a violent crime. Even if the search is unsuccessful, it will still allow the local authorities to know key information regarding the gun immediately after the discovery of the gun in the case that the gun is found at a crime scene.

  4. The SAFE Act will create a registry of assault weapons.

    People living in New York will be required to register their assault weapons with the state by April 15, 2014. The possession of an assault weapon is prohibited in the state of New York unless it was legally owned prior to the signing of the law on January 15, 2013. The law also bans the internet sale of assault weapons. By creating an assault weapon registry we allow for several positive factors to take place. First, by creating an assault weapon registry we have the possibility of returning these lost or stolen weapons to its rightful owner. Second, it allows police officers to solve criminal activity. For instance, if the assault weapon used by a criminal is confiscated after his/her imprisonment and the weapon was not reported stolen by its original owner then the owner may be involved in criminal activity and should receive consequences. Third, it will increase personal accountability. Through awareness that an assault weapon is registered to the owner’s name you increase the accountability of its owner causing him/her to be more likely to store the weapon more safely, report lost or stolen weapons, and less likely to lend that weapon to someone else. It is also extremely important to note that these positive factors could also be applied on a much larger platform by requiring a national general firearm registry.

  5. The SAFE Act requires mental health professionals to report to their mental health director the threats made by their mentally ill patients.

    The director would then report the serious threats to the state Department of Criminal Justice Services. This department will then consider the removal of the weapon from the mentally ill patient. If an individual is making harmful threats, is mentally ill, and owns a weapon, then it would be irrational to allow the individual to continue to own the weapon. It’s as simple as that. This is one of the only real ways the government is “taking our guns” and, as you can see, it is completely justified.

The NY SAFE Act is a law that was created in order to prevent criminals and the potentially dangerous mentally ill to own a firearm. This law, like any other, might contain errors and policies which will need to be reformed in the future, but it seems pretty obvious to me that it is a step in the right direction.

If you have any questions, comments, or concerns about the topic above please feel free to write a reply below. I love learning and educating myself and if you feel like you can contribute to this post by writing concerns felt by the opposing side of the argument, please do so below.

Related News

37 Responses

Leave a Reply
  1. Towerclimber37
    May 05, 2014 - 09:18 AM

    -magazine capacity- 1- 30 round magazines aren’t “high capacity”. they are pretty much standard capacity and have been for about 60 years. before that it was 20 round mags. 2. limiting magazine size does not appreciably lessen the rate of fire. a magazine change can be made in a fraction of a second. 3- the magazines weren’t a contributing factor in any of the mass shootings. the idea that a tin sign in a parking lot will deter someone who doesn’t follow signs or laws anyway is a contributing factor in mass shootings. The idea that the police have a duty to protect citizens is a contributing factor in mass shootings. the lack of personal accountability and refusal to take responsibility for your own safety is a HUGE factor in mass shootings.

    -Background checks on ammunition- since you can’t seem to understand the constitution, allow me to spell it out for you- this is an infringement on the rights of all Americans. it violates the highest law in the land.
    also, it will NOT deter anyone from obtaining ammunition. The government has spent BILLIONS of dollars to buy up as much ammunition that they can.
    People STILL have ammunition. I can MAKE IT FROM SCRATCH without too much trouble.
    Just as it’s not illegal to build your own firearm (the BATF could never enforce that law because it’s so EASY to build a gun!!) it’s just as easy to build your own ammunition. This won’t solve anything but it will cause an undue burden both financially and legally on law abiding gun owners.
    it is simply another step to confiscate or control the populace.

    -Registry of ‘assault weapons’- what you term as ‘assault weapons’ are nothing more than hunting rifles with cosmetic changes. they are not select fire ‘machine guns’. they are semi automatic rifles and have been around for over 200 years.
    They are used in .0038% of the crimes committed in the US yet you want them registered and confiscated. WHY?
    aside from this violating the 2nd, 5th and 10th amendments, history shows that in EVERY instance of gun registration, confiscation has followed and after that? demicide. (if you don’t know the word, look it up.)

    In NY and CT, free citizens are standing up and openly defying government. they are burning registration papers. they are telling them ‘we will not comply’. In colorado, 3 sitting state senators were, for all intent and purpose, impeached because they violated the constitution.
    Sheriffs in NY are openly defying government and stating that they will NOT enforce the safe act because it violates the constitution.

    -mental health- This is a wonderful idea! the only problem is it’s potential to be used to take the rights of sane, law abiding citizens. the gun control advocates WILL and HAVE used this as a vehicle to achieve their political goals and effectively circumvent the 2nd amendment.
    There is NO trust from the gun culture on this issue. Why? because gun control advocates all too often lie. they make up statistics.

    Fast and furious was an operation predicated to give credence to that idiot Hillary Clinton’s assertion that 90% of the guns used by mexican drug cartels are obtained in the US.
    That was a lie. She KNEW it was a lie. they obtain most of their guns from South America. She saw it as a way to enact controls on the law abiding citizens of the US and look what happened?
    It took President Obama using executive privilege to hide the facts from congress.

    No, facts and statistics don’t support your assertions.

    THAT is why someone asked if this was satire. You’re off to crazy town and America knows it!

    • Manny Rutinel
      May 05, 2014 - 04:42 PM

      1. High capacity is just a term to describe a magazine that is much higher than what is needed for traditional self-defense.
      2. It does lessen the rate of fire by causing the individual to be constantly changing the magazine. Even if it didn’t do it significantly, a magazine of higher quantity than those permitted are highly unnecessary and would be a red flag for individuals attempting to cause mass destruction.
      3. The mass shootings were done by high capacity weapons which allowed the individuals to shoot a significant amount of bullets within a very short period of time.
      4. Background Checks- It seems that you believe that there are no limits on any rights granted by the bill of rights. Not only do each of these amendments have their specific limits, but the thought that you believe that children, criminals, and psychotic individuals should be able to obtain a weapon is a bit absurd (they are American after all). Enforcing background checks will most definitely deter several people from obtaining a weapon. Even if it didn’t deter them, they would still have to go through a much more intense process of finding someone who would sell one to them and they may very well be caught throughout this process as well. It is also disturbing that you believe that just because you can make it at home that it should be legal. Bombs, nuclear weapons, and lethal drugs can be made in the comfort of your own home, it doesn’t mean that we should allow it though.
      5. Registry of assault weapons- I believe that a registry should not be limited to what you have just termed an “assault weapon”. I believe that it should be expanded to all weapons in the same way that cars are.
      6. It seems that you believe that the amendments are perfect, however, this is not the case. Even the Forefathers knew this fact and this is why they allowed them to be amended for the good of the people. I see that you fear that the government will soon start a genocide and, unfortunately, there’s not much I can say to ease your worries except the fact that we are firmly against that concept as a nation.
      7. Mental health- This is one that speaks for itself… do you really believe that we should allow mentally unhealthy individuals to acquire weapons?

      • Towerclimber37
        May 06, 2014 - 01:33 AM

        1.’traditional self defense’?? that’s a cute phrase and means absolutely NOTHING. self defense has always been traditional and it’s always used as many rounds as needed at the time. I defy you and demand that you show me where a set number of rounds has been framed as ‘traditional’ for self defense.

        2. it doesn’t lessen the rate of fire. magazines can be changed in a fraction of a second.
        http://youtu.be/CAFxgQmxbGI that’s your proof.

        3. This is inaccurate. In Aurora, the AR jammed (poor quality magazine) before 10 rounds were fired and the shooter went to a hand gun. he shot alot of people because he was at close range and the theater (now in a civil lawsuit over the deprivation of rights) disarmed it’s patrons.
        In Newtown, the shooter had standard capacity magazines and again, no one fought back. it’s easy to kill people when no one resists. If you notice AS SOON AS HE WAS CONFRONTED WITH ARMS he shot himself.
        Any one of those teachers would have given everything they owned for a firearm to defend themselves and their children. I blame YOUR thinking for that. no sign will stop someone committed to murder. an example of what happens when schools ARE allowed to defend themselves:

        4. according to McDonald v. Chicago, one justice limited weapons to shoulder fired. I agree on limits, just not the limits YOU desire, but for the sake of argument, I will inform you that the British that were marching on Lexington were there to confiscate not only muskets but civilian cannon, shot and powder as well.
        that’s right..Joe citizen had artillery. also, keep in mind that the Puckle gun was created well before the 2nd amendment was even written. it was basically a man portable cannon with a rotary magazine. Then there was the Girandoni air rifle: Not only does this rifle refute your “traditional self defense meme, it also proves that limits to magazine sizes are unconstitutional.

        5.firearm registry: you didn’t look up the word demicide did you? no, we won’t be registering our ‘assault rifles’. you’re welcome to disagree but this is one thing we won’t comply with. history is riddled with instances of confiscation after registration and then the killing begins…so no. don’t believe me?
        The word SHALL is the strongest language used in jurisprudence. it is a ‘do not cross’ line. it’s emphatic, yet you seem to think there’s wiggle room.
        MAY is a word in jurisprudence that allows for individual disgression, I don’t see where the 2nd amendment says MAY not be infringed. do you?

        6. what do you mean ‘will soon start a genocide? tell me, what does a municipal police force need with an MRAP? also: http://www.cato.org/raidmap

        7. I would LOVE to keep firearms out of the hands of mentally incompetent people. however, I will not allow it to happen if it’s used to deprive sane, law abiding citizens of their natural rights. if that seems callous, remember that the supreme court ruled that the police have no duty to protect you (Gonzales v. Castle Rock among others)..it’s YOUR duty to do so…with that in mind I remain armed for my own protection as well as that of my family.
        If you refuse to act in a prudent manner and take responsibility for your own self preservation, no matter if they’re crazy or not, there’s really not much that I can do about it. That is, after all, what individual liberty is all about. you’re welcome to put yourself in danger as long as you don’t endanger me.

        The founders never said that freedom was easily purchased, nor cheap to maintain. They did, however give us an excellent template to KEEP our freedoms providing we don’t get too lazy to maintain them. I will not allow your sloth or reticence endanger my rights which you didn’t bestow.
        The president himself cannot remove those rights and I will not allow them to be ‘interpreted’ out of existence.

        • Manny Rutinel
          May 06, 2014 - 11:47 AM

          1. Traditional self defense is a term I used to describe what is required for self defense in regular civilian life within the borders of the US. As opposed to what is required for self defense of military personnel abroad.
          2. The idea is to lessen the rate of fire for the majority of people who may commit heinous acts. We are fully aware that this change alone will not solve the problem, but it is a step in the right direction.
          3. I think an adequate compromise would be to train and arm teachers with something that can end these situations, but that does not have the ability to kill if used while not in the right state of mind against an innocent individual. Something along the lines of a taser gun for example. This would establish the maximum amount of safety.
          4. Just because cannons and weapons of massive destruction were carried by regular civilians does not mean that they should be allowed now. There is such a thing as progress. If we just stagnated at several points within history we would be in a much more terrible society. Whether or not it is unconstitutional is not the issue at hand. The constitution was made to be amended and if that is what needs to be done to promote a safer and superior environment, then so be it.
          5. If you sincerely believe that the American government is plotting to commit democide then I assure you we have progressed past this. It seems a bit absurd to think that it will, doesn’t it?
          6. It’s perfectly ok for you to be armed. However, it is highly unnecessary for you to be armed with weapons used for mass killing. I’d be willing to allow the owning of assault rifles so long as several objectives are met. For instance: mental evaluation, training of appropriate procedures in certain situations, registration of the weapon, and a background check, however, I fear you think these are too much to ask.

          • Towerclimber37
            May 06, 2014 - 12:24 PM

            1.that air rifle I spoke of? LEWIS AND CLARKE used it. it had a 30 shot capacity, was quieter than a suppressed rifle of today and was deadly. again, provide documentation instead of opinion. SHOW me where 10 rounds is ‘traditional’ show me where ANY arbitrary number has been framed as traditional for self defense. You can’t do it.

            2. it’s NOT a step in the right direction. again this is opinion and there are no facts to support it. An untrained, crazy and motivated guy in china stabbed 107 people in a train station. will you also ‘lessen the rate of fire’ for knives?
            3. I think that anything short of lethal is a bad idea when confronting someone who is better armed and motivated to kill. the LAST thing you want to be is the unarmed guy in a gunfight. I know this from experience.
            Also, if you’re concerned about trusting a teacher with a firearm, I can only say “if you can’t trust them with a firearm, why would you trust them with your child”?
            4. its not up to you or anyone else to ‘allow’ something. you don’t get to limit other people’s rights arbitrarily. I’ll give you a heads up too: civilians can STILL own bazookas, mortars and grenade launchers and cannons. I know a great guy who owns a pak75, 75mm artillery piece.. over 500,000 of us own full blown belt fed machine guns!
            5. your response is complete bullshit. History doesn’t bear out the truth of your effete dismissal.
            6.I really don’t care what you’re willing to allow, I’m here to tell you that you have no control over other people’s actions. you can “allow” me to have a 2 shot derringer but that mean I’ll abide by what “YOU ALLOW”.
            Who do you think you are to place limits on my right to defend myself or my kids to salve your FEAR? You don’t get to do that. that’s why the founders said that these rights are INALIENABLE. YOU can’t take, rent, sell, or barter my rights away. I cannot do that to your rights either.

            STILL waiting on documentation to prove ANY of your assertions. I’ve provided a modicum of links for you. Where is that same courtesy?

            • Manny Rutinel
              May 06, 2014 - 05:28 PM

              1. When I say traditional I don’t mean it in the sense of the past. I mean it in the sense of a standard of what is required for self-defense. (Which is different to what is required for self-defense in the military abroad)
              2. It is most definitely a step in the right direction. Australia has had 0 mass murders since they made similar steps to those of the SAFE act. We have had over 20 in the same time frame. If that is not enough proof for you, then I don’t know what is. http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html
              3. Those non-lethal weapons are more than sufficient for these troubling situations. I can trust a teacher and still not trust them with a lethal weapon. Highly emotional and angering situations happen in the classroom all the time and adding a lethal weapon into the mix would not be productive. By allowing these non-lethal weapons we allow for the protection without the fear of a life-threatening situation to occur while a teacher is hot-headed.
              4. It’s not arbitrary to assert that bazookas, mortars, or grenade launchers provide no advantages of self-defense and have the ability to cause way more harm than good. (Machine guns and assault rifles can easily be grouped in the same category)
              5. Although I sincerely believe that this will not happen I guess all can tell you is that I hope that you’re wrong. I also hope that you hope that you’re wrong.
              6. Regulation of the sort I stated are completely reasonable and the perfect compromise in order to maximize safety and your ability to own high-caliber weapons.

              • Towerclimber37
                May 06, 2014 - 06:31 PM

                2. since the gun confiscation scheme in Australia it’s violent crime has skyrocketed. Adelaide is a war zone these days and it’s not uncommon to hear gunfire at night.
                mass murders have stopped but mass murders are a very SMALL PART of the crimes committed in OUR country. no, you can’t confiscate my guns. if you try, I’ll shoot you. is that plain enough for you? unless you remove the 2nd amendment, you can’t have em.
                3. the effective range of a tazer is about 15 feet. the effective range of a pistol is 20 yards. You figure it out.
                4. if it’s not arbitrary to assert this, PROVIDE ME WITH FACTS! show me where they’ve been used to commit murders by lawful citizens.
                5. you hope that I’m wrong?? History support the FACT that gun registration leads to confiscation. hope has nothing to do with it.
                will it happen here? No. why? because we will NOT comply with a gun registration scheme. this was EXACTLY what the 2nd amendment was written for.
                6. reasonable has nothing to do with it. “reasonable is a purely subjective term” a crazy man thinks it’s reasonable to hurt other people. A politician thinks it’s reasonable to impose undue taxes on citizens.
                your argument is pure fertilizer.

                You keep repeating the same thing over and over again and you DON’T PROVIDE FACTS! Wishing it to be so does not lend legitimacy to your claims.

                according to the FBI crime overall is DOWN in the USA

                Mass shootings make up an extremely small percentage of those crimes yet you would use them as an excuse to control firearms.
                Hammers kill more people in the US than assault rifles. (look it up, it’s in there)
                POOLS kill more children every year than assault rifles…yet you would arbitrarily remove those devices from the hands of citizens.

                This isn’t about guns, it’s about control. We in the gun culture have backed up and been reasonable since 1968.
                we’re done being reasonable while your ilk use twisted memes and emotions, not facts, to erode our rights.
                we’re not backing up anymore. If you want my guns come and take them.

                • Manny Rutinel
                  May 06, 2014 - 07:08 PM

                  1. Again, I am using traditional in the sense of what is typically required for an act of self defense not as a term to mean in the past.
                  2. Almost none of what you have said is true and it has been proven wrong here http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp
                  3. There are tasers with much longer ranges and if it was properly invested in, then the range could easily quadruple within a year.
                  4. The reason why they have not been frequently used for mass murders is because they are so difficult to attain and are so heavily regulated! This is the exact same thing that should be done with these high-capacity weapons! By definition a LAW ABIDING citizen could not have committed a murder with this weapon because if they did then they wouldn’t be a law abiding citizen. But just in case you were curious as to what would happen if anyone could pick one of these up on the street without any form of regulation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj0v1V3M10g
                  Now just imagine if every single serial killer or psychopath also had easy access to this weapon. I’m sure you would agree with its extreme regulation then…
                  5. There are several other factors involved other than gun registration which have led to genocide. To say that there is a cause and effect relationship with gun registration and genocide is absurd. Your proof is Australia and the fact that they have not had a genocide after their gun registration!
                  6. The regulations I proposed are reasonable because it is the ideal way to allow you (a normal and non-psychopathic citizen) to acquire a higher capacity weapon while restricting these weapons from the people who are not as competent with them and could impose much harm.

                  • Towerclimber37
                    May 06, 2014 - 07:23 PM

                    Just listen to yourself. I’m linking to FBI statistics and you’re linking to snopes. (also found to be biased and unreliable..kind of like “politifacts”)

                    you want us to pin our hopes on future tazers instead of firearms to protect our children? wtf is wrong with you?

                    I’ve BEEN in Adelaide and heard the gunfire..don’t tell me what’s going on there. There hasn’t been genocide but violent crime and home invasions are through the roof!
                    You say “several other factors involved other than gun registration which led to genocide..but you don’t name them.
                    I can absolutely tell you that without gun registration, it wouldn’t have happened.
                    6. I don’t agree and won’t go along with it. if you manage to force it through, I won’t comply.

                    • Manny Rutinel
                      May 06, 2014 - 07:30 PM

                      All of the sources used by Snopes are sources of equal stature to those of the FBI.
                      I honestly can’t see what is so absurd about having a non-lethal weapon as the weapon of choice in order to increase safety.
                      You should really read that Snopes article.
                      The other factors include, but are not limited to, extreme racism, lack of compassion for other human beings, and a non democratic institution.
                      6. So you would rather own a weapon in a criminal manner than to go through the completely reasonable process which I have described above? I highly doubt this.

                  • GSP
                    May 23, 2014 - 12:35 AM

                    And what makes you such a tactical expert?

                    • Manny Rutinel
                      May 23, 2014 - 03:32 PM

                      Unfortunately, I am not. I am assuming you are, but I’m sure you also believe that many of the measures taken by the SAFE Act are completely reasonable.

  2. Towerclimber37
    May 06, 2014 - 02:10 AM

    One other thing: your comment “just because you can make it at home, it should be legal” – IT IS LEGAL TO MAKE YOUR OWN AMMUNITION! Never give an order that you know will not be followed…there’s currently no way to enforce a ban on making your own firearms OR ammunition.
    I do, however appreciate how you cast me as someone so willing to break the law.
    Don’t you think its arrogant to believe that you shouldn’t “allow” someone to pursue an action that is not only legal but does not impact your liberties one iota? I do.

    • Manny Rutinel
      May 06, 2014 - 11:54 AM

      My comment was “Just because you can make it at home, DOESN’T mean it should be legal”
      If we lived by “never give an order that you know will not be followed” then there wouldn’t be a need for laws! The idea is to give an order and if it is not followed then follow with the consequences. I believe that when we allow certain actions to be done, such as make their own assault rifles and ammunition, it has a high potential to impact the liberties of others. (Like if someone with bad intentions takes advantage of this ability)

      • Towerclimber37
        May 06, 2014 - 12:05 PM

        the potential to impact the liberties of others isn’t ‘very high’. please provide documentation to prove this assertion. About those consequences. If you give such an order, yourself, YOU had better be prepared for the consequences as well. Tread carefully mister because there are still many folks who will NOT be ruled and can barely be governed. Just the way the Founders intended.

        Oh and I’m still waiting on documentation for your earlier claims. Otherwise this is a propaganda piece and not worth the time it took to write it.

        • Manny Rutinel
          May 06, 2014 - 05:33 PM

          Every mass murder committed with a machine gun or a high capacity weapon is documentation which can be used as proof for my assertion.

          • GSP
            May 23, 2014 - 12:36 AM

            So how come retired cops are exempted? Are their lives more important than everyone else’s?

            • Manny Rutinel
              May 23, 2014 - 11:34 AM

              I believe it would be ideal if the government allowed people to get assault rifles, but only after extensive training and background checks much like what police officers and military personnel had to go through. I hope that is what we progress to, but for right now the measures taken have been a step forward.

              • ole meanie
                May 24, 2014 - 12:44 PM

                let me hit you with a cluebat here: most civilians train MORE OFTEN than police officers. those background checks you tout? they didn’t stop both fort hood shooters, nor the navy yard shooter.
                YOU are an idiot. you believe so many fallacies that aren’t even true. when questioned, you go into a ‘stuck on stupid’ routine..like the conversation about traditional round count.
                I will tell you outright. if you attempt to take my right to self defense, I will resist with both due and undue force.
                THAT is what the 2nd amendment is there for.
                Is that plain enough for you manny? am I getting through to you son? YOU didn’t give me that right. YOU don’t get to take it. The president himself doesn’t have the authority to do take it. Even KINGS cannot take this right.
                YOU don’t get to modify it, you don’t get to rent it, sell it or loan it out. you CAN ignore it but if you accost me, it will be YOUR peril not mine.

                You have the same rights as I do. Should you choose not to exercise those rights, it’s not my business. The founders didn’t promise you safety, you blithering idiot. they promised you messy, beautiful freedom. They did this because they took it as a given that you would be responsible for your own actions and your own safety.

                If you don’t care to be free, that’s your business. The rest of us will insist on our rights and enforce them with both law and lead in that order.
                I humbly advise you to change your diaper and emigrate to a country that doesn’t have the constitution as it’s highest law.

                also, you keep throwing around the word “reasonable’.
                Is it reasonable that I invade your home? is it reasonable that I find you in public and assault you?
                how about if I threaten your family? is that reasonable? to some people, these things are totally reasonable. Just like you advocating that I be unarmed in the face of these types of people.
                yeah, it’s NOT reasonable and with that in mind I cordially and warmly invite you to attempt self impregnation when you suggest that the laws you wish to impose on me are “reasonable”.

                • Manny Rutinel
                  May 24, 2014 - 07:36 PM

                  I believe that those civilians who are interested in having access to certain rifles SHOULD be able to attain them. However, I believe that an excellent compromise towards attaining maximum safety would be to have extensive background checks, psychological evaluations, and appropriate training on what to do in certain situations. This way appropriately trained and competent individuals, such as yourself, will be able to own these weapons while preventing others, who should not have these weapons, from getting them.

                  Those background checks that I’ve been praising have managed to stop over 2 million people who shouldn’t have weapons from acquiring them (like I stated above). Those isolated cases where an individual managed to get past the background checks can only indicate two things: 1. Background checks, although extremely effective in the majority of cases, will never be able to eliminate all of the “bad apples”. 2. Background checks are not sufficient and should include references as well as a psychological evaluation.

                  No one is trying to take your right to defend yourself. I will gladly stand by your side and defend our rights to defend ourselves using weapons not purposely created to cause massive harm in minimal time (if you are not qualified to have this sort of weapon). Also, it is important to note that the Forefathers created the constitution with the intention of it being amended for the good of the people. I would hope that even if the Forefathers gave us a right to own slaves, you would understand that for the good of the people it would be amended.

                  Like I said before, no one is asking for you to be unarmed. The protection of your family and yourself is of utmost importance. However, I wouldn’t expect you to use a nuclear weapon, a tank, or a grenade launcher in order to defend yourself. Like I said before, I am willing to make the compromise of allowing rifles as long as the conditions listed above are met.

                  Also, refrain from name calling as it only takes away from your points. Perhaps it would even be beneficial to read my article as I never suggested we “take your guns” or take away “your right to defend yourself” as you have claimed. If you would have read the article I hope you would have found that the policies enforced are a step in the right direction.

                  • ole meanie
                    May 24, 2014 - 11:48 PM

                    I don’t care what you’re interested in or what you think people should or should not have access to.
                    I’m done talking to you jackass. if you implement a federal ban on firearms you’d better back that up with your life. I’ll spend mine to defend my natural rights.
                    you are a liar, bad at debate and so dumb that you couldn’t pour piss out of a boot with instructions on the heel.
                    you’d stand by my side except when? tell me son, what are guns designed for if not massive bodily injury?
                    It’s also important to point out that the founders wrote the constitution. they didn’t create natural rights.

                    Natural rights predate and exist outside of ANY government. they are immutable. the founders only RECOGNIZED those rights. Just as the magna Carta did. Just as the Talmud and the Bible do. also the federalist papers, John Locke and Samuel Robertson in Lex Rex (circa 1644).

                    you don’t get to choose what I defend myself and my family with because you cannot choose what criminals will attack us with.
                    The day you stand beside me to protect ANYTHING except the same pants you wet yourself in is the day I apologize in a loud military manner to one and all and proclaim you king. (that’s how absurd your stupid statement sounds to me)
                    your arguments are akin to the idea that you can pick up a turd by the clean end and not get your hands dirty.
                    they lack any basis in fact, common sense or coherent logic.
                    that being said, this is the last time I’ll post because you’re too stupid to get the picture.
                    Enjoy your gun free zone! wear a bullet proof vest!

                    • Manny Rutinel
                      May 26, 2014 - 08:36 AM

                      Nobody is trying to impose a federal ban on firearms! I fear you are not actually reading my responses and are merely assuming certain things.
                      The policies in place have been shown to provide positive steps towards a safer society in other nations.
                      I understood almost zero of your insults towards me, but maybe I really am too dumb to understand your logic. (Despite being a philosophy student)
                      Again, I am not in favor of a “gun-free zone” as you have stated far too much.

          • Towerclimber37
            May 06, 2014 - 06:34 PM

            machine guns and ‘high capacity weapons’ are 2 totally different tools. your assertion is horse shit.

            • Manny Rutinel
              May 06, 2014 - 07:18 PM

              Right, which is why I separated the two words with an “or”. I never claimed they were the same. Haha the “horse shit” part was truly the cherry on top. 😀

              • Towerclimber37
                May 06, 2014 - 07:28 PM

                as far as I know there have been only 2 incidences of using select fire weapons in a crime in the last 90 years. 1 was a cop!!
                so adding select fire weapons in with your ‘high capacity weapons’ was simply a ploy to get those banned as well.
                nice try but you still don’t get it. We will no longer be reasonable. at every turn we’ve been reasonable and hoplophobic people have used that kindness to take our rights with no good purpose. The only thing we’ve gotten is bodies of children killed in schools more crime and less accountability.
                so no. you don’t get to make ‘reasonable suggestions’ anymore with any hope of cooperation.
                chalk it up to 40+ years of being taken advantage of.

                • Manny Rutinel
                  May 06, 2014 - 07:39 PM


                  • ole meanie
                    May 15, 2014 - 07:47 PM

                    actually, they only started regulating machine guns heavily in 1986. you’re an idiot.

                    • Manny Rutinel
                      May 15, 2014 - 08:22 PM

                      National Firearm Act of 1934 (Which was in response to all of the murders the mafia did using machine guns)
                      National Firearm Act of 1938
                      Gun Control Act of 1968
                      Also, the high expense as well as the lack of availability of these weapons acted as a natural regulator of these weapons. In this day and age removing regulations would allow far too many unqualified people to attain the weapon.
                      Also, refrain from name calling as it does not help your cause. 🙂

  3. Jason Falconnier
    May 02, 2014 - 11:05 AM

    This is satire, surely?

    • Manny Rutinel
      May 02, 2014 - 11:48 AM

      Haha not exactly… Which part are you most concerned about? :/

      • B
        May 23, 2014 - 08:52 AM

        The lack of citations that any of the SAFEact is effective. “Positive Policies” implies that there is some sort of societal benefit and you have not addressed the benefits or lack there of in regards to the SAFEact.

        • Manny Rutinel
          May 23, 2014 - 11:30 AM

          Similar measures have worked effectively in other nations such as Australia. Where, by the way, they don’t even have the equivalent to our second amendment.
          The positive effects which will be attributed to this will be an increase in safety, at least in theory, but it seems promising.

      • Buzz
        May 23, 2014 - 01:17 AM

        Likely the Liberal (pun) use of the phrase “common sense” to justify ignorant, emotion driven policy.

        • Manny Rutinel
          May 23, 2014 - 11:40 AM

          Whether it is being emotionally pushed for or not, is not of relevance. These policies are common sense in terms of creating a safer society while still allowing people to defend themselves using less massively destructive weapons such as hand guns.

  4. Buzz
    May 23, 2014 - 01:18 AM

    Off topic: I do like what you did with the side scroll bar and the disappearing percentage box that shows how far down the page you’ve moved. Pretty cool…… Still nothing “common sense” in this piece, though >:( lol

    • Manny Rutinel
      May 23, 2014 - 03:22 PM

      Haha thanks buddy! BTW I think it’d be a little better if you directly addressed what you thought was not common sense about the article. 🙂

      • ole meanie
        May 24, 2014 - 11:56 PM

        he doesnt have to. I got it covered…


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyrıght 2013 96down. All RIGHTS RESERVED.