Yahoo/AP: NY seals 1st state gun laws since Newtown massacre

[AsburySkinsFan]

If you find that scary... you might be just a *little bit* paranoid. And by "little bit", I mean completely off your rocker.

See it's fun right?

[Jumbo]

Well sheriffs generally come from a smaller pool, the small pond thing.

even several legislators are making noise on non-enforcement ....sos,different day

I figure that some of it has to derive from it being an elected office. In many (mainly rural) areas there are few specific qualifications or skills required, and it's more a matter of just "getting the votes." In the end, you may mainly have a small town (or lower-population county) politician with guns and a badge.

Also, since historically sheriffs were usually the commanders of local militia, that likely plays a role in outlook.

[SkinsWarrior81]

Right.

That's why the 2nd Amendment begins with the words "A citizenry possessing more unregistered weaponry than a company of infantry, being necessary to prevent a Muslim from making people buy health insurance, . . . "

Oh wait, it doesn't. It says that it exists because that was the only way the nation could defend itself.

But then, I guess the people who wrote it, didn't posses as clear a knowledge of why they wrote it, as you do.

Not quite sure what you are getting at here. Either the nations citizenry has the ability to own firearms to defend itself from tyrannical government, or it doesn't. Currently, and for the entire of our history as a nation, it does.

[Jumbo]

Not quite sure what you are getting at here. Either the nations citizenry has the ability to own firearms to defend itself from tyrannical government, or it doesn't. Currently, and for the entire of our history as a nation, it does.

Just for the record, a person who [regularly[/U] thinks there is a serious and viable threat, yet actually doesn't exist in a rational, factual, objective analysis, is one of the ways you establish paranoia.

Also just for the record, the person who exhibits paranoiac thinking on some matter/issue (or actually has a general disorder featuring that type of cognition) absolutely believes they are totally rational in their fear and will cite all sorts of "real facts and real reasons" to support their issue.

Anyone who holds any kind of serious fear of "the US gov" subjugating it's civilian population in "tyranny" (by any rational societal use of any of those terms--i.e.--not liking the tax structure imposed by law does not qualify ) is at least being <you pick the word>, if not displaying paranoiac thinking, based on any rational analysis of evidence to date.

Of course, given the way so many of the, let’s say, “Confederate friendly” attitudes re: the Civil War are also embodied by many of the same demographics, there is more than one consistency in play. It comes as little surprise to many that these themes, along other signs of paranoiac thinking and various insecurities commonly identified in personal psychological development, are shared by some of the highly vocal "anti-gun-law" folks.

Some (giving benefit of the doubt) of these folks are not simply keen-eyed vigilant protectors of freedom. They often seem more like silly-to-nutty goofballs to sometimes outright <you go ahead here >.

I don't regard you as a nut or crazo, SW81, I am just using your posts as a springboard to speak generally, though I think from your posts you might fit the group I'd call at least "a tad over-concerned" . That doesn't stop me from thinking it's a damn good habit to keep a rational but alert and challenging eye on our ruling bodies.

As in most things, I advocate keeping intelligent discernment and emotional balance equal to concern.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Not quite sure what you are getting at here. Either the nations citizenry has the ability to own firearms to defend itself from tyrannical government, or it doesn't. Currently, and for the entire of our history as a nation, it does.

Wolverines!!!!!

......or what Jumbo said......

[Larry]

Not quite sure what you are getting at here. Either the nations citizenry has the ability to own firearms to defend itself from tyrannical government, or it doesn't. Currently, and for the entire of our history as a nation, it does.

Currently, and for the entire history of our nation, they have NOT.

You see, the second amendment actually SAYS why it was passed. (The only amendment to do so).

And "in case people want to overthrow the government" ISN'T the reason.

Now, I'm quite certain that at least some (no doubt many, maybe all) of the founders had that as ONE of their motives.

But this whole thing of claiming that overthrowing the government was THE reason? Funny, but the people who wrote it SAID that they had a different motive. And then a bunch of people voted for that reason. And then a whole bunch of other people voted to ratify it.

Which was why I clearly stated that.

[wantarace17]

Just for the record, a person who [regularly[/U] thinks there is a serious and viable threat, yet actually doesn't exist in a rational, factual, objective analysis, is one of the ways you establish paranoia.

Also just for the record, the person who exhibits paranoiac thinking on some matter/issue (or actually has a general disorder featuring that type of cognition) absolutely believes they are totally rational in their fear and will cite all sorts of "real facts and real reasons" to support their issue.

Anyone who holds any kind of serious fear of "the US gov" subjugating it's civilian population in "tyranny" (by any rational societal use of any of those terms--i.e.--not liking the tax structure imposed by law does not qualify ) is at least being <you pick the word>, if not displaying paranoiac thinking, based on any rational analysis of evidence to date.

Of course, given the way so many of the, let’s say, “Confederate friendly” attitudes re: the Civil War are also embodied by many of the same demographics, there is more than one consistency in play. It comes as little surprise to many that these themes, along other signs of paranoiac thinking and various insecurities commonly identified in personal psychological development, are shared by some of the highly vocal "anti-gun-law" folks.

Some (giving benefit of the doubt) of these folks are not simply keen-eyed vigilant protectors of freedom. They often seem more like silly-to-nutty goofballs to sometimes outright <you go ahead here >.

I don't regard you as a nut or crazo, SW81, I am just using your posts as a springboard to speak generally, though I think from your posts you might fit the group I'd call at least "a tad over-concerned" . That doesn't stop me from thinking it's a damn good habit to keep a rational but alert and challenging eye on our ruling bodies.

As in most things, I advocate keeping intelligent discernment and emotional balance equal to concern.

We really need a like button on this forum

[SkinsWarrior81]

Currently, and for the entire history of our nation, they have NOT.

You see, the second amendment actually SAYS why it was passed. (The only amendment to do so).

And "in case people want to overthrow the government" ISN'T the reason.

Now, I'm quite certain that at least some (no doubt many, maybe all) of the founders had that as ONE of their motives.

But this whole thing of claiming that overthrowing the government was THE reason? Funny, but the people who wrote it SAID that they had a different motive. And then a bunch of people voted for that reason. And then a whole bunch of other people voted to ratify it.

Which was why I clearly stated that.

You are misquoting me. I am not advocating overthrowing the government. I am simply stating the intent of the 2nd amendment, which has been repeated, many, many times by the founding fathers in many ways.

Here is one of the more important commentaries regarding it -

The orthodox view of the meaning of the Second Amendment was articulated by Joseph Story in his influential Commentaries on the Constitution. In his view the meaning of the Amendment was clear:
The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.[109]

---------- Post added January-17th-2013 at 02:11 PM ----------

Just for the record, a person who [regularly[/U] thinks there is a serious and viable threat, yet actually doesn't exist in a rational, factual, objective analysis, is one of the ways you establish paranoia.

Also just for the record, the person who exhibits paranoiac thinking on some matter/issue (or actually has a general disorder featuring that type of cognition) absolutely believes they are totally rational in their fear and will cite all sorts of "real facts and real reasons" to support their issue.

Anyone who holds any kind of serious fear of "the US gov" subjugating it's civilian population in "tyranny" (by any rational societal use of any of those terms--i.e.--not liking the tax structure imposed by law does not qualify ) is at least being <you pick the word>, if not displaying paranoiac thinking, based on any rational analysis of evidence to date.

Of course, given the way so many of the, let’s say, “Confederate friendly” attitudes re: the Civil War are also embodied by many of the same demographics, there is more than one consistency in play. It comes as little surprise to many that these themes, along other signs of paranoiac thinking and various insecurities commonly identified in personal psychological development, are shared by some of the highly vocal "anti-gun-law" folks.

Some (giving benefit of the doubt) of these folks are not simply keen-eyed vigilant protectors of freedom. They often seem more like silly-to-nutty goofballs to sometimes outright <you go ahead here >.

I don't regard you as a nut or crazo, SW81, I am just using your posts as a springboard to speak generally, though I think from your posts you might fit the group I'd call at least "a tad over-concerned" . That doesn't stop me from thinking it's a damn good habit to keep a rational but alert and challenging eye on our ruling bodies.

As in most things, I advocate keeping intelligent discernment and emotional balance equal to concern.

My general thought process on these things is simple - I would like to maintain all of my current rights, and secure more should I be able to. At no point do I find it morally acceptable for the government to limit or usurp my/your/our rights.

I understand most people find that to be a relatively extreme position, and I can handle the criticism that that brings. For me, our civil liberties mean everything.

[Larry]

You are misquoting me. I am not advocating overthrowing the government. I am simply stating the intent of the 2nd amendment, which has been repeated, many, many times by the founding fathers in many ways.

And I'm simply stating the intent of the second amendment, WHICH IS CLEARLY STATED, IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

But please, feel free to keep pulling up things that one person said, somewhere. And I will keep pointing out the words that they all agreed on, and voted on, and put into the constitution.

[Jumbo]

My general thought process on these things is simple - I would like to maintain all of my current rights, and secure more should I be able to. At no point do I find it morally acceptable for the government to limit or usurp my/your/our rights.

I understand most people find that to be a relatively extreme position, and I can handle the criticism that that brings. For me, our civil liberties mean everything.

While I would not count myself as sharing that exact school of thought, I think it was a thoughtful and coherent summary of a POV that can be legitimately respected even when disagreeing (giving each other well-intentioned crap doesn't count ).

[alexey]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

The Battle of Athens (sometimes called the McMinn County War) was a rebellion led by citizens in Athens and Etowah, Tennessee, United States, against the local government in August 1946. The citizens, including some World War II veterans, accused the local officials of political corruption and voter intimidation. The event is sometimes cited by firearms ownership advocates as an example of the value of the Second Amendment in combating tyranny.

[DjTj]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946))

It sounds like they used bolt-action rifles and pistols that would not be banned assault weapons.

[SkinsWarrior81]

And I'm simply stating the intent of the second amendment, WHICH IS CLEARLY STATED, IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

But please, feel free to keep pulling up things that one person said, somewhere. And I will keep pointing out the words that they all agreed on, and voted on, and put into the constitution.

That "one person" happens to be an ex supreme court judge and that "one thing" he said happens to be the basis for how the 2nd amendment and much of the constitution has been interpreted for our history.

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/89vand.pdf

There are two main reasons that the 2nd amendment was written the way it is:

1 - That to have a standing army within the United States was viewed as an unmitigated threat to liberty, so the people themselves should be able to defend the country from invaders, defend themselves, and their property.

2 - The individual right to bear arms was a necessary check against the power of government, and that that right could not be taken by rulers.

More than once have the framers mentioned this.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Screw the NRA.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/we...the-boom---atf

[Popeman38]

The emotional responses of those on the gun control side of the house really are getting old. Yes, 20 children died in SHES. Hoorible, unspeakable tragedy. Does it require passing more gun laws? No.
Homicides by firearm (FBI - http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...data-table-8):
2007-10,129, 2008-9,528, 2009-9,199, 2010-8,874, 2011-8,583

See a trend? Crime is down to historic lows. Murder is down too. Jon Stewart isn't helping, as he keeps sighting 30,000 deaths from guns. Well, if murder by firearm is down to 8,583 what makes up the rest of his number? 650 justifiable homicides. 19,766 suicides. ~500 accidental gun deaths. That puts the number at 29,500, so close enough.

Mass shootings? They must be up. Not really. Instances of shooting where at least 4 people were killed has hovered right around 25 for the last 30+ years. In those 30 years, literally thousands of gun control laws have been passed, including the implemetation and expiration of the AWB.

What does all this mean? We, as a society, are committing less violent acts and fewer homicides every year. Without the govt stepping in and creeping on the second amendment. Common sense needs to prevail in this debate, not emotion.

---------- Post added January-17th-2013 at 05:53 PM ----------

Screw the NRA.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/we...the-boom---atf

Jon Stewart is not an innocent bystander in this debate. He is not presenting news in his snippets and monologues about gun control. He would prefer a country free of guns. He has stated so on the record. He provides a satirical, comedic "news show", and he is also on record saying that if you turn to The Daily Show to get your news you need help.

He is funny, but he isn't a journalist.