Video #5: Honorable Steven F. McLaughlin - Seven Bullets
Begin Transcript
Steven F. McLaughlin: Uh, couple of questions for you and sorry if they seem a little nitpicky or, uh, detailed but, uh, we didn't get this bill til very late last night and that's what happens when things get rushed through around here so we're not, we're kinda still digesting some of this. So, uh, a couple of questions for you.
Um, on the magazines being dropped, uh, the magazine limit being dropped from 10 to 7.
Joe Lentol: Yes.
Steven F. McLaughlin: Simple question is "Why?". Why are we limiting law-abiding citizens ability to defend themselves in a home invasion by 30 percent?
Joe Lentol: I think the short answer to that bill is that, uh, if you have a magazine with only 7 bullets, it will limit the amount of people you can unlawfully kill.
Steven F. McLaughlin: Well that's true. It also would limit the ability to defend yourself, would it not, from people that are invading your home?
Joe Lentol: Change the clip. (laughter)
Steven F. McLaughlin: Change the clip. (laughter) I'm sure the people who are under invasion will be thrilled to hear that. Change the clip. We heard a senator say that the other day on the radio. Change the, change the magazine or change the clip and call the police. That'll work great in rural Albany county or up in the Adirondacks where your nearest police may be 60 miles away. So I don't think they'll be too thrilled to hear that response.
But, uh, does, you know I heard you say earlier, "A part of thing we like is that there's increased penalties for criminals to illegally use weapons". The truth is we already have penalties for illegal use of weapons, do we not?
Joe Lentol: Yes.
Steven F. McLaughlin: And criminals being what they are don't seem to care too much about any penalty, that's why they are, by definition, criminals. So I'm just wondering why we think that this is, after 600 failed gun laws apparently in this state, why this is the magic elixir that is suddenly going to get criminals to pay attention to a law?
Isn't it kind of a fallacy to think that, and aren't we just infringing upon law-abiding citizens right to keep and bear arms? And I'm not sure of what part of will not be or cannot or shall not be infringed is, subject to debate, or difficult to understand? But are we not just infringing on the law-abiding citizen?
Joe Lentol: No we're not, I think. I think you're mistaken in that this bill has a two-pronged approach. It raises the penalties for criminals, you're right about that. And it also tries, as best we can, as a state, because you know, this province should belong to the Federal government but like other places in our law, they haven't acted. So we believe it's up to us to lead the way.
You know, the border of Connecticut is only a few miles away from the state of New York. And I don't want, I for one don't want to wait for a tragedy like Newtown before we take some action to prevent it.
Steven F. McLaughlin: Right. And I don't really want to wait for a potential tragedy of a home being invaded and losing a family because they o..obeyed this law, and only had 7 bullets in a magazine, when there were 2 or 3 animals coming in to do them harm. So it cuts both ways. Make no mistake about that. It cuts both ways. And it mainly impacts the law-abiding citizen.
End Transcript
I have to wonder what makes Mr. Lentol think that a criminal, being what a criminal is, will, as Mr. McLaughlin pointed out, suddenly obey a law on a magazine restriction? This is the disconnect I have in trying to discuss issues with friends. They seem to operate under the delusion that a law is a preventive measure by way of the penalties it imposes. That the evil person, the criminal, faced with the prospect of a large fine, and perhaps months, years or life in prison, will decide "You know, they've bumped this up from a misdemeanor to a class C felony. If I shoot this person and kill them, that new law is really going to do me in! Time to take up knitting.".
And, always, in the Name of the Children. Couched in that generic phrase "take action to prevent it". What action, Mr. Lentol? What insight do you possess that makes you think this will do anything but criminalize and punish the innocent? Not children but their parents. The people who work, pay taxes in the state and are the ones, whether you believe it or not, who elect you to represent, not oppress, them! Not strip away their rights and limit their choices because you and the Governor know what's best for them.
Mr. McLaughlin is right. What will you do if some law-abiding citizen, being the law-abiding person that they are, obeys this law and has their family hurt or killed as a result?
I'm sure a New York husband will be thrilled, after emptying his gun into one invader attempting to defend his wife and daughter and then being caught by the other while "changing the clip" as Mr. Lentol puts it, to watch them rape her and then his daughter before his eyes, as animals are wont to do for sport, before slitting their throats and leaving his for last. And then take his gun on their way out the door leaving a job well done for the arriving police called on 911 to admire.
And in your universe and that of Mr. Abinanti's, another legal, lawful gun owner will be responsible for letting a gun, perhaps a deadly "assault weapon" onto the streets.
But no one will demand this law be repealed to prevent such a tragedy except for men like Mr. McLaughlin. Because such a scenario is the intention of the law. And to blame the law-abiding for the scourge of violence committed these animals.
Just "change the clip", Mr. Lentol. We'll remember that with the scorn you heap upon us. I hope your constituents do too. I hope they appreciate that if they only walk away with just scars and a bloody reminder that were unable to lawfully kill as many as necessary. After all, how long before you make the killing of a criminal unlawful simply on the basis he or she wasn't offering sufficient harm and you used more than one bullet as Mr. Abinanti believes is enough? That, of course, is the next step. When we can read minds, we'll know how to deal with the criminals before they commit crimes and actually prevent them.
For now, I guess we'll just have to "change the clip" and hope for the best.
I'm not laughing, Mr. Lentol. I'm sure Mr. McLaughlin isn't either.
D.K.
No comments:
Post a Comment