Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 95

Thread: Just cancelled my Rockland Journal Subscription

  1. #41
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    4,797
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    Assault rifles dont require a permit. Their list only included names of people that have a permit to own a handgun. For a newspaper to print their names and a map of their addresses, treating them like sex offenders or felons is beyond extreme and the publishers most certainly knew what they were doing.
    ====================================

    Well not every one with a permit to own a hand gun as they did leave there names off the list.

  2. #42
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,644
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    So your answer is no to the public gun registry?
    Thats safe to say, aye.

    I doubt you'd be a fan of such Public Registries for other things....like say, mental illness diagnosis. anyone who is diagnosed with any mental status that includes possible violence as a symptom or medication side-effect must register with the Police, and be in a Public Database. Whats the harm in that, right, we law abiding citizens would then know who the crazies are.

    Seems fair.

    And I don't consider a police check to be a "criminal invasion" or a swat team, etc. That's your excessive attempt at distorting to serve your stance.
    Well, lets ask a Cop (Green32) if he's about.

    If a citizen calls in and reports his neighbor is currently "acting erratically in plain sight", is "making (you) very nervous by his actions", is engaging in "disturbed behavior" AND you report that he is "stockpiling guns"......what would the appropriate police action be?

  3. #43
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    4,797
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    TLDR: Abusing one right (speech/media) to try and ban another (gun rights), whilse abusing a third (privacy), is not a good thing.

    If you want to know why mandatory state-based registration has an much opposition as it does (apart from confiscation fears down the road), this is your example. No one wants their private information forcibly "shared" by the State to anyone, much less an abusive media trying to screw people.
    =============================================

    Preach on brother, I couldn't agree more.

  4. #44
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    4,797
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    The responses here are very interesting. I'm not arguing for or against public registries, but I would think if there is one it should include a list of people who own all forms of firearms. Would it be so difficult to exclude law enforcement personnel - active/retired? Would it be a problem for that list to require a request through an agency rather than a newspaper publication?

    Re the example, the key issue was "stockpiling" of weapons coupled with observed erratic behavior. It seems in your world there are only two options: wildy insane or normal. In my world, the accumulation of risk factors would suggest someone take notice. Police would not be required or expected to declare who filed the complaint so I don't get the concern about being retaliated against. MH Crisis Teams are called every day in NYC due to observed MH problems in a family member, neighbor, or stranger. This is not a new service, but one that has been in existence for many years. Just the simple presence of the police to investigate might serve as adequate deterrent to said neighbor acting out some mass attack. Same with an MH evaluation. The neighbor might even get some help. God forbid that we should engage professional intervention to at least check things out... or are we arguing here that the police should not have the right to investigate a complaint because it infringes someone's liberty?
    =============================================

    You know I don't agree with all you post, but in regards to getting people who are suffering from a mental illness reported we are on the same page.

  5. #45
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    4,797
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    No, I wouldn't. Trying to distort the point to make it silly is really not adding to the discussion. So your neighbor is shouting obcenities in his underwear on his front lawn while he waves his Glock 9 mm around. Seems perfectly okay to me... he's just expressing his personal liberty on his own property. Nothing to see here... move on. Of course, I might want to put the dog in the garage and make sure my kids aren't playing anywhere nearby. But hey, free country. Until he starts pulling the trigger it's not my problem. Got it.
    ========================================
    By all means if you become aware of illegal activity, or any behavior theat makes you fearful from your neighbor yous should dial 911

    Quote Originally Posted by Bonhomme Richard View Post
    Or... you call the police and let the authorities handle it.
    =============================================

    Bingo!
    Quote Originally Posted by Trades View Post
    This seemed like a fitting article to the discussion here. Long but worth a read.

    http://reason.com/archives/2013/01/1...ndy-hook/print
    ================================================== =

    I enjoy John Stewart, he always is entertaining and makes some good points, but in this case he is rationalizing emotionally rather then looking at the whole picture logically.

    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    So your answer is no to the public gun registry?

    Actually, that part I do think is a good idea. But I also think there should be some protocol for accessing the record as well... i.e., if you want to know, you need to register your request with ID. And I agree that most of this is already covered, which was why I was so surprised that it set up a wail of horror from the peanut gallery. And I don't consider a police check to be a "criminal invasion" or a swat team, etc. That's your excessive attempt at distorting to serve your stance. And yeah, if my neighbor is making very nervous by his actions and I know through public means that he's arming himself, I'd certainly consider giving the police a call.
    ==============================================

    Once again if are very nervous by the actions of your neighbor then you should report them regardless if he owns a gun or not. Should we register butcher knives, baseball bats, pointy sticks? Sticks and stones can break your bones and a knife can stab you through the heart?

  6. #46
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    7,986
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnails View Post
    ==============================================

    I disagree, it went beyond knee jerk and rash, it was done punitively, with a political ax to grind, also no doubt meant to be controversial cause controversy sales papers. Two birds with one stone.

    I also believe The publishers and writer were well aware that there could be a negative effect on legal gun owners. Why else did they leave there own names off the list/map, as the writer and at least one of the publishers have been reported to have hand gun permits and we assume are also legal gun owners?

    If I believe my neighbor is acting erratic enough that I fear they may harm themselves or some one else I would report them to 911 and I have done so. I consider that action to have been in self defense, and for a genuine concern for my neighbors (who I care about) well being.
    I didn't know about that additional information re the publishers leaving their own names off. Makes it even more egregious.

    Your last paragraph is pretty much what I was suggesting, but I was asking whether some form of registry for all weapons would make sense. I raised this question not because I feel it must be done in a particular way but because I could see some scenarios where it could be a way to deter a mass murder. In thinking about it, I would be okay with a registry of all weapons that only law enforcement could access. As long as I knew that somebody was putting two and two together to identify someone giving seriousl signals of violence, that would work. Doesn't have to be a private citizen doing the dot connecting. If it was law enforcement accessible only, would that change anybody's mind here about a universal registry? Just curious...

  7. #47
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    4,797
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    I didn't know about that additional information re the publishers leaving their own names off. Makes it even more egregious.

    Your last paragraph is pretty much what I was suggesting, but I was asking whether some form of registry for all weapons would make sense. I raised this question not because I feel it must be done in a particular way but because I could see some scenarios where it could be a way to deter a mass murder. In thinking about it, I would be okay with a registry of all weapons that only law enforcement could access. As long as I knew that somebody was putting two and two together to identify someone giving seriousl signals of violence, that would work. Doesn't have to be a private citizen doing the dot connecting. If it was law enforcement accessible only, would that change anybody's mind here about a universal registry? Just curious...
    ================================================

    I agree that a gun registry could be a good tool for Law enforcement to use.
    I am against gun regsitry because I feel it could be abused by the government, and at some point in time lead to gun consfication.
    I also believe the main purpose of the 2nd is to keep govt. fearful of it's citizens, and feel it is important to at least have the means needed to overthrow the Govt. if it ever became nesacarry. That and I believe in the right to defend our selve in general with guns.

    I would also point out that WA state has a gun registry for all guns sold through FFL's since around 1995 or so, and there guns have not been confiscated. I also don't believe WA LEO's have found the registry of particular usefullness on any large scale. I feel WA passed this gun registry on purely an emotional basis.

  8. #48
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    7,986
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnails View Post
    ================================================

    I agree that a gun registry could be a good tool for Law enforcement to use.
    I am against gun regsitry because I feel it could be abused by the government, and at some point in time lead to gun consfication.
    I also believe the main purpose of the 2nd is to keep govt. fearful of it's citizens, and feel it is important to at least have the means needed to overthrow the Govt. if it ever became nesacarry. That and I believe in the right to defend our selve in general with guns.

    I would also point out that WA state has a gun registry for all guns sold through FFL's since around 1995 or so, and there guns have not been confiscated. I also don't believe WA LEO's have found the registry of particular usefullness on any large scale. I feel WA passed this gun registry on purely an emotional basis.
    I have to say you are one of the most level headed participants on this board. I appreciate that even when you don't agree, even strongly, with somebody's position, you say it in a way that is respectful and actually encourages further thought rather than shutting it down.

    That said, the point I highlighted is one which I am at best mixed on to dubious re that being the intent of the 2nd Amendment. It would have been extremely paradoxical for the founders to invest so much in a Constitutional government with mechanisms for peaceful change and amendment, for compromise, and for protection of minority factions and then to throw in an amendment to protect against itself by armed force. I can imagine their fear that a usurper would discard the Constitution and try to suppress "the people" via some form of despotism, thus the desire to make sure the people maintained the right to keep and bear arms. In addition, congress still held authority over the state militias, so even the language of the second amendment is structured to maintain that arrangement as a local/state level means of guarding "the free state." JMHO.

  9. #49
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    4,797
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    I have to say you are one of the most level headed participants on this board. I appreciate that even when you don't agree, even strongly, with somebody's position, you say it in a way that is respectful and actually encourages further thought rather than shutting it down.

    That said, the point I highlighted is one which I am at best mixed on to dubious re that being the intent of the 2nd Amendment. It would have been extremely paradoxical for the founders to invest so much in a Constitutional government with mechanisms for peaceful change and amendment, for compromise, and for protection of minority factions and then to throw in an amendment to protect against itself by armed force. I can imagine their fear that a usurper would discard the Constitution and try to suppress "the people" via some form of despotism, thus the desire to make sure the people maintained the right to keep and bear arms. In addition, congress still held authority over the state militias, so even the language of the second amendment is structured to maintain that arrangement as a local/state level means of guarding "the free state." JMHO.
    =============================================

    First off thank you for your very kind comments on my posting.

    As to the 2nd, I always have felt the wording was very clear. However I am not the authority in deciding it's meaning, I am happy to leave that up to the SCOTUS, and to the people if they so decide to amend it.

    I do feel compelled to speak out on issues pertaining to the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, in this forum and others and even have in the last 3 years begun to write to my legislators and tell them my feelings, I feel it our duty to do so, along with voting.

    I apologize for the lengthy copy and paste quotes below, the truth of it is these great men represent my thoughts better then I could ever state them,
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    "On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)

    "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)

    "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787.


    "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
    -Thomas Jefferson, Bill for the More General diffusion of Knowledge (1778).

    "(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
    -James Madison.


    "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States."
    -Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the federal Constitution (1787) in Pamphlets to the Constitution of the United States (P. Ford, 1888).



    "Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
    George Washington
    First President of the United States

    "The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
    Thomas Paine

    "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
    Patrick Henry
    American Patriot

    "Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
    Thomas Jefferson
    Third President of the United States

    "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
    Thomas Jefferson
    to James Madison

    "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    Ben Franklin

    "An armed man is a citizen. A disarmed man is a subject."
    Anon.

    "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

    -Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria.

    "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
    -Tench Coxe, Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution, under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1989 at col. 1.

  10. #50
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    18,637
    Post Thanks / Like
    Whoever was responsible for publishing that information should be in jail.

    I wonder what would happen if someone published the names and addresses of everyone who was on welfare, food stamps, unemployment or housing assistance.

  11. #51
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    7,986
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnails View Post
    =============================================

    First off thank you for your very kind comments on my posting.

    As to the 2nd, I always have felt the wording was very clear. However I am not the authority in deciding it's meaning, I am happy to leave that up to the SCOTUS, and to the people if they so decide to amend it.

    I do feel compelled to speak out on issues pertaining to the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, in this forum and others and even have in the last 3 years begun to write to my legislators and tell them my feelings, I feel it our duty to do so, along with voting.

    I apologize for the lengthy copy and paste quotes below, the truth of it is these great men represent my thoughts better then I could ever state them,
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    "On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)

    "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)

    "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787.


    "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
    -Thomas Jefferson, Bill for the More General diffusion of Knowledge (1778).

    "(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
    -James Madison.


    "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States."
    -Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the federal Constitution (1787) in Pamphlets to the Constitution of the United States (P. Ford, 1888).



    "Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
    George Washington
    First President of the United States

    "The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
    Thomas Paine

    "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
    Patrick Henry
    American Patriot

    "Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
    Thomas Jefferson
    Third President of the United States

    "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
    Thomas Jefferson
    to James Madison

    "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    Ben Franklin

    "An armed man is a citizen. A disarmed man is a subject."
    Anon.

    "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

    -Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria.

    "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
    -Tench Coxe, Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution, under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1989 at col. 1.
    Yes, that's a fair display of the angles of thinking on the issue. But note that nowhere is it expressed that the failure to get ones way via legitimate processes of Constitutional government permit the use of firearms as an alternative method. If constitutional government is overthrown, if we are invaded, if the army takes over and abuses its might, then the fact that the people have been sanctioned to keep arms does become their last resort to protect their personal liberty. It may indeed also serve as a deterrent to tyranny or invasion, etc. I think that was particularly true for a fledgling nation creating an experiment in government that were not sure would survive in a world in which there were several great powers eyeing their lands. My argument is with some people's definition of "tyranny." This is where Jefferson was rash in his statements at times and sadly misused by secessionists and survivalists and the like. Once he was president, his tune changed quickly. He was quite the protean figure depending on where he stood. It's a fair debate though. One man's tyranny is anothers legitimate excercise of the Constitution.

    I should have also added that Jefferson was opposed to standing armies, the draft, and pretty much anything that smacked of military consolidation of power. And he was pretty explicit in his take on the second amendment, which is more in the form of citizens being organized into "well-regulated" units rather than sitting on their front porch with a shotgun:

    For a people who are free and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security. It is, therefore, incumbent on us at every meeting [of Congress] to revise the condition of the militia and to ask ourselves if it is prepared to repel a powerful enemy at every point of our territories exposed to invasion... Congress alone have power to produce a uniform state of preparation in this great organ of defense. The interests which they so deeply feel in their own and their country's security will present this as among the most important objects of their deliberation." --Thomas Jefferson: 8th Annual Message, 1808. ME 3:482

    "None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important, but especially so at a moment when rights the most essential to our welfare have been violated." --Thomas Jefferson to -----, 1803. ME 10:365

    "It is more a subject of joy that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there can be no pauper hirelings." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1813. ME 13:261
    "A well-disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war till regulars may relieve them, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our Government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.
    Last edited by long island leprechaun; 01-16-2013 at 08:48 AM.

  12. #52
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,644
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DDNYjets View Post
    Whoever was responsible for publishing that information should be in jail.

    I wonder what would happen if someone published the names and addresses of everyone who was on welfare, food stamps, unemployment or housing assistance.
    I wouldn't go so far as to say they should be in jail. They broke no laws.

    But your second line is a great example of why the first is unacceptable. No one would be tolerant of having the welfare rolls or food stamp recipients names and addressed published so, and rightfully so. That information should be private, even if the Govt. has it. I do not believe the FOIA was ever intended to bash private citizens for recieving services from Government, nor was it meant as a tool to "out" those of a different political viewpoint for mere expression of a constituioanl right without additional cause or crime.

  13. #53
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Boston area
    Posts
    4,461
    Post Thanks / Like
    The media would (rightfully) never publish the addresses of people with mental illness because a tiny minority commit violent crime yet have no problem with the scarlet letter approach on ALL law abiding gun owners.

  14. #54
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    4,797
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    Yes, that's a fair display of the angles of thinking on the issue. But note that nowhere is it expressed that the failure to get ones way via legitimate processes of Constitutional government permit the use of firearms as an alternative method.
    ==================================================

    I think it is fair to say we are not in reality that far off. It seems clear to me the founding fathers intended for the "MIlitia" to be under govt. control.

    Somewhere in DC it is written, "Of The People And By The People"

    If "The People" want to declare something legal or illegal, evn though I do not agree, I am OK with that.
    If "The People" want to amend the constitution, even though I do not agree, I am OK with that.

    I do not support a overthrow of the govt. At this time. But somewhere down the line I can see where it may become necessarry, maybe 50 maybe 150 years down the line.

    I think maybe are difference lies in how we view guns themselves, I see them as George Washington referred to them.

    "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."

    Where as others see them as the root cause for evil acts of violence.

    Regardless I will submit to the will of the people how ever this shakes out, not happily, but understandably, in the meantime I will continue to stump for the cause.

  15. #55
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    7,986
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnails View Post
    ==================================================

    I think it is fair to say we are not in reality that far off. It seems clear to me the founding fathers intended for the "MIlitia" to be under govt. control.

    Somewhere in DC it is written, "Of The People And By The People"

    If "The People" want to declare something legal or illegal, evn though I do not agree, I am OK with that.
    If "The People" want to amend the constitution, even though I do not agree, I am OK with that.

    I do not support a overthrow of the govt. At this time. But somewhere down the line I can see where it may become necessarry, maybe 50 maybe 150 years down the line.

    I think maybe are difference lies in how we view guns themselves, I see them as George Washington referred to them.

    "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."

    Where as others see them as the root cause for evil acts of violence.

    Regardless I will submit to the will of the people how ever this shakes out, not happily, but understandably, in the meantime I will continue to stump for the cause.
    I know I'm tagged as the urban lib for questioning the value of a registry. I'm a kid who grew up in Northern Minnesota. Hunted deer and partridge. Lived on a farm where we had a small arsenal of weapons for hunting. My personal rifle was a Winchester lever action with the long octogonal barrel - an antique, but shot straight with a hair trigger. Guns were well taken care of and appreciated. I was on the rifle team in college. I've seen guns handled well and carefully, and I've seen guns handled abysmally. My example about the crazy neighbor was not too far off my own experience as a kid. We had twenty head of cattle fenced, but the rest of our land was open. In the house over the hill, our teenage neighbor decided to sit in his bedroom window and shoot both our dog as it passed across his property and our other neighbor's dog. It was great going out on the porch to get the school bus to find our golden retreiver bleeding all over from a shot through his neck. We nursed that dog to health, took the family to court along with our outraged neighbor and lost the case. Personal property. Judge ruled he was in his rights, even though the judge expressed disgust with his actions. I gave up hunting long ago, but again, I've seen hunters who do it right and many many who shouldn't be given a popsicle much less a weapon... deer stands twenty feet high, using high powered, semi-automatic weapons because they can't shoot worth a damn and more often than not wound badlly rather than kill, and drink and hunt. It's frankly despicable. And it's not sport. It's nothing. It's ugly. A hunter who doesn't respect the life he's hunting shouldn't hunt. But that's just my two cents. I have more stories, but I'll stop there... even got shot at once as a kid by a crazy farmer... he missed. Just hit the shiny fender on my bike.

    And I get the self-protection issue. I don't have a problem with gun ownership and believe it should be protected. As to the specific types of weapons and their proper venue, I'd probably want more constraint.

  16. #56
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,644
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    But note that nowhere is it expressed that the failure to get ones way via legitimate processes of Constitutional government permit the use of firearms as an alternative method.
    What about tresspassing, rioting, destroying public property, littering, destroying private property, assault, rape, child abuse, theft and any of the other crimes committed during the various "Occupy" Movement Protests?

    Also, an argument can be made that there is nothing about Constitutional Government that makes it above reproach of revolution (armed or otherwise) if it oversteps it's bounds. Simply being "constitutional" does not make it special, or fair, or immune to the causes of a civil uprising and rebellion, as portions of Occupy itself so clearly shows.

    One man's tyranny is anothers legitimate excercise of the Constitution.
    Indeed.

    I'm curious tho, what kind of United States do see if we simply banned all private ownership of guns outright, say? What effects do you believe such a decision would have (made via Constituional Government, i.e. the revokation of the 2nd amendment via teh appropriate path, etc)?

    Because I'll be quite honest, I look at New Yorks "strictest" laws ever.....and I don't see it having any effect on criminal gun violence, and it's effect on the law abiding will only create new criminals who fail to meet the new regulations. I don't see it stopping a single mass shooting, or stopping run-of-the-mill crime at all. Which makes me ponder the point, beyond political points.

  17. #57
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    7,986
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    What about tresspassing, rioting, destroying public property, littering, destroying private property, assault, rape, child abuse, theft and any of the other crimes committed during the various "Occupy" Movement Protests?

    Also, an argument can be made that there is nothing about Constitutional Government that makes it above reproach of revolution (armed or otherwise) if it oversteps it's bounds. Simply being "constitutional" does not make it special, or fair, or immune to the causes of a civil uprising and rebellion, as portions of Occupy itself so clearly shows.



    Indeed.

    I'm curious tho, what kind of United States do see if we simply banned all private ownership of guns outright, say? What effects do you believe such a decision would have (made via Constituional Government, i.e. the revokation of the 2nd amendment via teh appropriate path, etc)?

    Because I'll be quite honest, I look at New Yorks "strictest" laws ever.....and I don't see it having any effect on criminal gun violence, and it's effect on the law abiding will only create new criminals who fail to meet the new regulations. I don't see it stopping a single mass shooting, or stopping run-of-the-mill crime at all. Which makes me ponder the point, beyond political points.
    To your first point, you're raising issues of criminality, which there are laws and enforcement already built to address. Not sure where gun ownership comes into that equation, except by police. Maybe I'm missing your point there.

    To the second point, if our Constitutional process cannot repair itself through peaceful means, it has failed. There should truly never be a situation within the context of our existing framework that requires citizens to become revolutionaries using guns to back a position. If we really believe in representative democracy, any attempt at tyranny through the Constitution should be rebuffed by the good sense of the people using the appropriate legislative and judicial, as well as electoral processes. This is a point where Jefferson motto about "a little revolution once in a while," is, I believe, dead wrong and a piece of arrogant drivel, which he himself would not exercise.

    To the last point? If we met the criteria for an amendment to the Constitution revoking the Second Amendment, it would be the will of the people. Until that will shifted (as it did with prohibition, which also didn't work out too well), there is no ground for armed rebellion. That just plain should not be an option if our system has any worth at all. If we are invaded, or the Army takes over and disbands the Constitution, the people should indeed prepare for militia action to protect their freedom. But that's revolution against another government, not our present one.

  18. #58
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,644
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    To your first point, you're raising issues of criminality, which there are laws and enforcement already built to address.
    And yet almost none of which were enforced.

    Maybe I'm missing your point there.
    Obviously.

    To the second point, if our Constitutional process cannot repair itself through peaceful means, it has failed.
    Yes.

    There should truly never be a situation within the context of our existing framework that requires citizens to become revolutionaries using guns to back a position.
    Disagree. Intolerable Tyrany can exist even in a Constitutional Representative Republic, for example, if the system and process is corrupted in any number of ways (widespread Gerrymandering for one example).

    If we really believe in representative democracy, any attempt at tyranny through the Constitution should be rebuffed by the good sense of the people using the appropriate legislative and judicial, as well as electoral processes.
    Assumes the majority of people always and universally posess "good sense".

    How'd that work out over slavery, for example?

    To the last point? If we met the criteria for an amendment to the Constitution revoking the Second Amendment, it would be the will of the people. Until that will shifted (as it did with prohibition, which also didn't work out too well), there is no ground for armed rebellion.
    No gorund in your view.

    Perfectly resonable ground, perhaps, for millions of thers.

    That just plain should not be an option if our system has any worth at all.
    Assumes, arrogantly, that our system is perfect, and uncorruptable.

    To which the only reply is....lol.

    But that's revolution against another government, not our present one.
    Assumes only the Millitary can "take over" and run roughshod over the Constitution and the people.

    This exchange is one reason I strongly support the rights of succession. If a region ont he Nation feels, via it's own representative democratic process, that it no longer chooses to be a willing part of the Union, it should have the freedom of self-determination as to what Government is chooses.

  19. #59
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The depths of Despair.
    Posts
    39,558
    Post Thanks / Like
    Check this out. There is no provision for retired Law Enforcement.

    I am now....a criminal.

    The 15 round mags I had for my glock are now illegal. If I were to sell them out of state, there are no 7 round mags for this weapon.

    Technically, the law allows me to put 7 in a 10 round mag, but only if I owned the mag before, which none of us do because we had no warning about this.

    This is why people are screaming; In Cuomo's rush to be the first, he effectively disarmed thousands of good guys... and essentially criminalized them....did nothing to address the thousands of black market weapons that flow in and cause the real damage in our streets. (I vouchered many many guns during my career due to arrests....all handguns and all illegally possessed...virtually all of them from out of state....I was nearly killed by one too)

    Throw the baby out with the bath water for political expediency, demonize solid citizens with ill informed rhetoric, ignore the roll of mental illness and societies failure to protect itself from the thousands of virtual time bombs "not taking their meds"....

    One of these time bombs drives into Harlem with a pocket full of cash, he will drive out with a gun. Its no big secret.

  20. #60
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,644
    Post Thanks / Like
    New Warfish Gun Laws:

    1. All Guns Must be Registered. No Full Autos allowed. Max 25 round Clips.

    2. If you are found guilty of committing a crime while in posession of a NON-registered firearm or illegal firearm, you and executed.

    3. If you are found guilty of committing a crime while in posession of a registered gun that is not your own and has not been reported (within 24 hours) as stolen, you get life in prison no parole, the registered owner gets 10 years, no parole.

    4. If you are found guilty of committing a crime with a registered gun that is your own, automatic 50 year mandatory minimum.

    To make room in prisons, Pot will be legalized (and taxes), and all other non-violent drug posession crimes will be converted to misdemeanor and the prisoners released. Violent drug crimes get no repreieve.

    Done, gun problem fixed as fixed as it'll ever possably be in a free country.

    Best of all, the only "rights" involved are those of a convicted, violent, gun toting criminal. Not all of us.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us