Outrage after NY paper publishes names of gun permit holders

[IslandTractor]

Right there pretty much sums it up.
You see it as a need for government protecting you from others and most TBN members see it as government granting them the right to defend themselves from others.

So, to take this argument to an extreme, why shouldn't i be allowed to protect myself from a mad gun nut with a Bushmaster by using a M60 to protect myself?

My point is really that your right to carry arms needs to be balanced with my right to live without concern that the local village idiot can easily acquire an AR15 type weapon and proceed to take out a first grade class because he is pissed at his mother. I have no trouble with single shot weapons which was all the framers of the Constitution could ever have been thinking about. After that simple right however I think other issues can be considered. We have the right to free speech but not the right to scream "Fire!" when that puts others in danger. Guns can be allowed without permitting every single type of gun. We don't allow true machine guns to be owned by individuals and that has held up to SC review for 80 some years. Why, after learning that similar rapid fire weapons are causing civilian deaths should we not institute similar restrictions on such weapons?

I am aware the previous assault ban didn't work well. So ratchet it up rather than whining. Turn them all in Australia style. I don't see any tyrannical government popping up in Oz but we do know that they have had not even one more mass killing there since assault type weapons were totally banned. And they have about thirty firearm homicides a year compared to our ten thousand. Is that connection really so hard to understand? Buy the rapid fire weapons back and establish major penalties for non compliance. Insure rapid Federal death penalty for any crime committed with such a weapon. If you cannot decide where to draw the line between military type assault weapon and sporting rifle then draw a line at weapons available to the public before 1939 or 1914. It really isn't impossible to do this in a logical and consistent manner. So what if there is a somewhat arbitrary line drawn? We make relatively arbitrary laws all the time (think speed limits). So long as the laws are enforced fairly people will learn to live with them.

 

[dave1949]

Right there pretty much sums it up.
You see it as a need for government protecting you from others and most TBN members see it as government granting them the right to defend themselves from others.

Not quite. I can easily see an armed society as an evil and threat to all, whether most TBN members, hardly a representative group, recognize it or not. Many don't even understand the limitations placed on the 2nd Amendment, or refuse to accept that the Supreme court says that there are limits.

As an individual, I cannot demand that society comes to its senses and puts its guns away. Why shouldn't I expect we the people (government) to limit violence, and why should any government grant the right to continued violence? Who's interest can that possibly serve, and why would you accept that as your children's future?

"Defending themselves" is a euphemism for "I don't know how to achieve less violence, which can't have any relationship to my gun, so I will be prepared to perpetuate it." That is setting a very low bar.

 

[hosspuller]

Try this link for info of the Journal News staff ..

Sauce for the goose or, home address and phone number of Journal-News publisher | For What It’s Worth

 

[hosspuller]

I am aware the previous assault ban didn't work well. So ratchet it up rather than whining. Turn them all in Australia style. .

Island ... The fallacy is the same as our gov't economic solutions. It didn't work before ... WE NEED TO INCREASE the pain, stimulus, taxes, inflation, etc.
"Socialism didn't work because we didn't kill off enough of the aristocracy..."

No... The Constitution limits the gov't for good reasons. The Founders were well versed in bad gov't. and history.

 

[daugen]

So long as the laws are enforced fairly people will learn to live with them.

Didn't Great Britain try that and they finally had to arm their police because the bad guys
didn't give a whit what the law said? Perhaps there is something to live and learn about the Australian method of dealing with firearms.

I've always thought fully automatic rifles were a city thing. Impress your boyz. Any hunter that can't take an animal down in five or six shots likely
should not be hunting. And who hunts with a .223 anyway? Ok, I know there will be a roar of disapproval, yes you should be able to blast away with any
gizmo you want, on your own property, where you can't possibly hurt anyone else. So you want a 50 cal on your back deck and you've got five hundred acres out there,
well why not? Just don't drive off your property with it. If you really need ten 50 cal's to protect your homestead, well, ok. Just be responsible for all they damage they can do
to the wrong thing or person when the lead is flying.

 

[MossRoad]

We don't allow true machine guns to be owned by individuals

Yes we do.... if you get the proper permits.

 

[RoyJackson]

Yes we do.... if you get the proper permits.

Yep, class 3 firearms are available for those with the money to afford them.
It costs about $200 for the paperwork to purchase the firearm.
No "permits" required...just the tax stamop documentation.

 

[MossRoad]

And who hunts with a .223 anyway?

There's a huge market for varmint hunting with that round. Coyotes come to mind.

 

[SPIKER]

I was thinking they used the Federal Handgun Permits forms that everyone has to fill out to get the names and locations of legal gun buyers they are the form the you fill out and then wait for 2 weeks until you can pick up the guns.

If I was a neighbor of these idiots I would up up a 4x8 sheet sign that stated "My idiot Neighbor in the big house is a Gun Hater, he has lots of toys and money. I promise I will not defend his home using my guns nor will I interfere in anyway to stop his NON GUN OWNER RIGHTS."

Islandtractor it is a "slippery slope" to keep any freedom of the press then it is just as slippery slope to stop ANY GUN OWNERS RIGHTS! The gun ban did not work nor will they, the 2nd amendment is there so "WE THE PEOPLE" can defend ourselves from ALL DANGERS weather they come form a foreign government a crook or our own government. As such we are entitled to have the same weaponry that could be used against us. The US Government has already turned guns on it's innocent people in many cases killing a good number. Think Kent State, Think David Koresh Waco TX (28kids died there with 54 adults) or Gordon Kahl in SD... there is a long list of people that gets out on the wrong side of the law, iven if the do/don't deserve to be there. Government will eventually TRY to take all guns out of the hands of the civilians someday. I'll be long gone by then and when it happens I only hope there are enough real men left to stand up to the politicians and left wing nut jobs. I also know that cops can and DO go after people just because they think they can/have the power to do so. There are lots of killings that happen during burglaries & out here cops cant get there for 30 or 40 min is common so thinking they are there to help not going to happen. They are there to file reports for insurance and to write traffic tickets is all.

I'll keep my GUNS safe by keeping them where I know they are and having one close to make sure the rest stay put...

 

[Ken]

So, to take this argument to an extreme, why shouldn't i be allowed to protect myself from a mad gun nut with a Bushmaster by using a M60 to protect myself?

My point is really that your right to carry arms needs to be balanced with my right to live without concern that the local village idiot can easily acquire an AR15 type weapon and proceed to take out a first grade class because he is pissed at his mother. I have no trouble with single shot weapons which was all the framers of the Constitution could ever have been thinking about. After that simple right however I think other issues can be considered. We have the right to free speech but not the right to scream "Fire!" when that puts others in danger. Guns can be allowed without permitting every single type of gun. We don't allow true machine guns to be owned by individuals and that has held up to SC review for 80 some years. Why, after learning that similar rapid fire weapons are causing civilian deaths should we not institute similar restrictions on such weapons?

I am aware the previous assault ban didn't work well. So ratchet it up rather than whining. Turn them all in Australia style. I don't see any tyrannical government popping up in Oz but we do know that they have had not even one more mass killing there since assault type weapons were totally banned. And they have about thirty firearm homicides a year compared to our ten thousand. Is that connection really so hard to understand? Buy the rapid fire weapons back and establish major penalties for non compliance. Insure rapid Federal death penalty for any crime committed with such a weapon. If you cannot decide where to draw the line between military type assault weapon and sporting rifle then draw a line at weapons available to the public before 1939 or 1914. It really isn't impossible to do this in a logical and consistent manner. So what if there is a somewhat arbitrary line drawn? We make relatively arbitrary laws all the time (think speed limits). So long as the laws are enforced fairly people will learn to live with them.

weapons available before '39 or'14 ?
Would you accept a black power gun so the person had to clean out the barrel then pour the powder then the lead load and tamp it in.then put in a cap.? now return your car to a Model "T" or a chevy type vehicle. maybe follow the law of having some walk in front waving a flag to keep from scaring the citizens of the city.

return to passenger trains no air conditioning or heating.
Cannot remember thay may of had the Tri engine Ford for passenger air planes.
Need more reporters to be like Mark Twain the citizens burned his new paper to have him move on.
Who needs facts when the mind is made up.
ken