Sogaard

Correct. Though without a long arms permit, you aren't supposed to have the powder or caps for the MZ in NYC. Oh, with one stipulation on the xbow. Pistol-like crossbows are still illegal.

Btw, my brother is a Court Officer for almost 25 years now. It took him 3 weeks of asking the "right" people to get the answer I listed above from the DAs office. Most people just don't know what the deal is anymore since there is no longer any mention of them, so they assume they are illegal.

This is not true anymore, though you still might get in trouble. Crossbows are not mentioned at all in the penal code anymore since it became legal to hunt with them two years ago. There is no reference to them being illegal, so technically, they are legal. Of course, since there is no longer a reference to them, and they were illegal for so long.... This information came from the Staten Island DAs office and I also asked it specifically to the DEC bow instructors this year when my sons took their bow hunting class. TL:DR - You may get arrested, but the charges won't stick.

Site your sources please. I'll get back to tearing this apart tomorrow.

Hey, that philosophy worked for us in 2008!

2004? Please define "backed". He certainly didn't vote for anything Federal in 2004, since he was only elected to the US Senate in November of that year. In 2008, (I'll go out on a limb here, you may not even know this) you must be referencing DoC vs Heller. This was Obama's statement on the SCOTUS decision: "I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today's ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country. As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe." I know, crazy talk!

That's how you see it. I think we've already bottomed out and are on the way back up. I do not think Romney is the way to move forward. I see him as a step backwards. Our opinions differ. That's what makes this country great. In the end, I'm not sure why I put so much effort into voicing my opinions here. Obama will carry NY easily. Muhahahaha! To paraphrase, "Vote Democrat, we're lame, but the other guys are nuts!"

When you have to go back 14 years to find something, he must be very passionate about it. The quote on the crazy website does better than that, they only had to go back 6 years for their blurb. BTW, I still don't get how most of you feel Romney is any more pro-gun than Obama. Look how he ran Mass. He wants your vote, so he tows the line, for now at least. Come his second term though, even if he doesn't even hint at it during his first term, he's gonna get ya! (Wait for it.... Wait for it......)

Yeah, how dare we liberals talk about the 8 years of terrible leadership before Obama. That's so mean of us.

Hmm...that sentence sounds like you've been partying a little too. And don't make me pull out some GWB imminent threat warnings pre-9/11! I'll do it! I swear!

I don't agree with that. "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done." Seems clear to me he was addressing all acts of terror, but specifically referencing the deaths in Benghazi.

Very true. Do you really see a semi-automatic ban exec order in the future? Really?

Bubba, we were talking about stricter gun bills/laws. Those would have to go through Congress.

Believe me, I'm trying to! I'm sick of taking pictures of bucks I can't shoot. I'm dying to get back up into the woods before bow season ends, my work schedule just isn't cooperating.

Nah, I'll just point out that it would have to get through Congress. You know, that silly branch of our government that actually makes the laws. The fact that you're a stupid, right-winged, racist moron has nothing to do with it. (I couldn't resist)

So you had nothing to contribute to the conversation, yet did. Again, I know I'm the slow one here, so you'll have to excuse me, but the point of my Lincoln quote was, if you had nothing of substance to say, maybe you should just........not......speak....... I'm working..............on my ...........use.............of.........ellipsis.............to..........................prove........I'm.......right? Is it working?

Little g is a constant. Where you aim is not.

What are you calling a lie here? What Candy Crowley said? Or Romney saying Obama took "days" to call it an "act of terror"?

Gotcha, so you're talking out your ass and you know it. And you're too lazy to bother doing your own fact checking, so you want me (or anyone else) to do it for you. Ok, I'm going to pass on that, other than to say, you're very much mistaken. Feel free to do a little research and prove me wrong.

Funny stuff right there!

"Better to stay quiet and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - AL Pre-apologize to the moderators, at this point I'm baiting a little bit

Sad truth there. I'm 37 years old. December birthday, so I have only been voting in Presidential elections since 1996. I don't think I have ever voted for a Presidential candidate because I truly liked him. Its always been because I hated the other guy more. The closest I came to liking a presidential candidate was when I voted for McCain in the Republican Primary in 2000. Shame he lost that, I think a lot of things in this country would have been better if we had had McCain for 8 years instead of GWB. I'd probably still be a Republican.

You have no idea what you are talking about here. Please take the time to research what the "UN thing" was about, and then come back and post an intelligent comment and I'll address it.

You focused on the word "right", but left off his other two words, "freedom" and "desires". Can't pick and choose like that.

What's the Republican stance on abortion again? Or gay marriage? K, thanks.