Sign in to follow this  
Guest One of Five

Oh Looky - NY Sheriffs Association responds to Cuomo's gun laws.

Recommended Posts

 

...

 

 

Riffles are a lot less commonly used in murders than some those other things like the wood chipper. And the multi round semi-automatic rifle is an important hunting tool especially for those retards that never took the time to learn to aim.

 

Do you think a law limiting people to 1 round per week will help people learn to aim?

 

 

Bazinga!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Life has moved on to sillyville. NY'ers are now allowed to own guns with magazine capacities above 7. They just can't load more than 7 rounds. Neener neener neener.

 

OK, the law doesn't really come with a "neener neener neener" but it should.

 

I'd do a victory lap if that stupid law went away. Let's consider it on its merits, as you suggest.

 

Do you think it has any? If so, what are they?

 

Tom, I know zip about guns. But I know that in the fifties and sixties the shotguns of hunters were fucking limited to three shells. Without outrage, silly girl.

You are handwringing over silly details while peddling dangerous gun policies.

 

You also failed to answer my question.

Boothy has asked about this matter again today.

He is requesting the responsible, lawful collection of firearms from restricted indivuduals.

 

I am not asking for a childish discussion here.

Please weigh in on the need for apparently righteous (presumably lawful) confiscation of the guns of known felons.

My point is that some gun confiscation is warranted, depending. Hello?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

...

 

 

Riffles are a lot less commonly used in murders than some those other things like the wood chipper. And the multi round semi-automatic rifle is an important hunting tool especially for those retards that never took the time to learn to aim.

 

Do you think a law limiting people to 1 round per week will help people learn to aim?

 

 

Bazinga!

 

 

Geez. Is this massive cultural deterioration?

Dumbass and Dumberass. City boy thought patterns.

 

 

If one were lost in the wilderness, hungry, and had one bullet, that would IMPROVE his skill...or else.

If that same person was lost in the wilderness, hungry, and had ten bullets, not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Life has moved on to sillyville. NY'ers are now allowed to own guns with magazine capacities above 7. They just can't load more than 7 rounds. Neener neener neener.

 

OK, the law doesn't really come with a "neener neener neener" but it should.

 

I'd do a victory lap if that stupid law went away. Let's consider it on its merits, as you suggest.

 

Do you think it has any? If so, what are they?

 

Tom, I know zip about guns. But I know that in the fifties and sixties the shotguns of hunters were fucking limited to three shells. Without outrage, silly girl.

You are handwringing over silly details while peddling dangerous gun policies.

 

You also failed to answer my question.

Boothy has asked about this matter again today.

He is requesting the responsible, lawful collection of firearms from restricted indivuduals.

 

I am not asking for a childish discussion here.

Please weigh in on the need for apparently righteous (presumably lawful) confiscation of the guns of known felons.

My point is that some gun confiscation is warranted, depending. Hello?

 

 

I replied to Boozy 5 days ago.

 

Is failing to answer questions bad or something? If it is, prove it.

 

Do you think the law requiring that only seven rounds be loaded into a magazine has any merits? If so, what are they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Life has moved on to sillyville. NY'ers are now allowed to own guns with magazine capacities above 7. They just can't load more than 7 rounds. Neener neener neener.

 

OK, the law doesn't really come with a "neener neener neener" but it should.

 

I'd do a victory lap if that stupid law went away. Let's consider it on its merits, as you suggest.

 

Do you think it has any? If so, what are they?

 

Tom, I know zip about guns. But I know that in the fifties and sixties the shotguns of hunters were fucking limited to three shells. Without outrage, silly girl.

You are handwringing over silly details while peddling dangerous gun policies.

 

You also failed to answer my question.

Boothy has asked about this matter again today.

He is requesting the responsible, lawful collection of firearms from restricted indivuduals.

 

I am not asking for a childish discussion here.

Please weigh in on the need for apparently righteous (presumably lawful) confiscation of the guns of known felons.

My point is that some gun confiscation is warranted, depending. Hello?

 

 

I replied to Boozy 5 days ago.

 

Is failing to answer questions bad or something? If it is, prove it.

 

Do you think the law requiring that only seven rounds be loaded into a magazine has any merits? If so, what are they?

 

 

I can answer that: The eighth round is dangerous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

LOL, well I guess you're going to have to get used to a bill pushed by Republicans, under a Republican Administration, by a Republican controlled House and Senate and attached to a bill titled The Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, The Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief of 2005 which no one in their right mind would vote against. This baby was partly born out of the need to do something about immigration, so live with it, rejoice in it, and next time consider making your elected leaders debate the issue before you let them vote for something you're going to hate in the future.

 

Kinda like the ACA?

 

 

If only Republicans debated perhaps they could have negotiated a different product. As of today, they still don't have an alternative and probably won't in the future.

 

 

Why should you choose an alternative piece of shit instead of just not putting shit on your sandwich in the first place?

 

 

We got what we have because Republicans wanted nothing to do with it and they still refuse to participate in government, unless it is their way all the way. That's not how you govern and that is not any way to run a country.

 

 

 

I'm wondering if that idea applies when the subject is limiting access to tools, more commonly known as gun control?

 

Badlat, was it wrong for the Democrat lobbyists in NY to have their puppets declare an emergency so they could pass the SAFE Act in the dead of night without debate? Is that any way to govern?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got chastised for saying this over in GA:

 

No one else has anything to add to the Glock 43? I checked it out; looks compact with stopping power. But with seven shots you better hit what you point it at.


That's all you're allowed to load in NY, even if your magazine holds more.

But then, if she's going to carry in a place like that, you'll also need to write in the part where she bribes authorities to actually get a permit.

 

First, I'd like to point out that if you need more than one or at most two shots to kill a deer, you don't belong in the woods.

 

Because that's somehow relevant to what BJ is talking about, based on past comments here.

 

"Don't worry, you nutters, you'll get to keep your hunting rifle."

 

Except, as discussed elsewhere in GA, my dad's old tube-fed .22 rifle is an "assault weapon" to the grabbers in jocal's state. It holds 14 rounds, if you can imagine the danger.

 

When making a fictional character realistic is on the line, suddenly there's concern that seven rounds might not be enough. But when the Democrat lobbyists who control the NY legislature had their puppets rush through a ban on guns that hold more than seven in the dead of night, using emergency rules to bypass any debate, that concern was not in evidence at all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seven rounds sounds like about six more holes in the single wide.

"emergency rules to bypass debate?" "dead of night"?

You shoulda been welcome there, with your hand out and your indoor militia argument.

It would have changed the mood in NY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering if that idea applies when the subject is limiting access to tools, more commonly known as gun control?

 

Badlat, was it wrong for the Democrat lobbyists in NY to have their puppets declare an emergency so they could pass the SAFE Act in the dead of night without debate? Is that any way to govern?

 

 

"Limiting access to tools" means gun control? I've noticed the term without placing the meaning.

No wonder your side is losing in court. Maybe it's the the trite presentation of a tragic and lethal epidemic.

 

Based on the known femicide numbers, this problem is about lovers quarrels. Lovers triangles.

Tom, is the gun a "tool" of love?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seven rounds sounds like about six more holes in the single wide.

"emergency rules to bypass debate?" "dead of night"?

...

 

Yes, that's what happened. The details are upthread if you're genuinely curious.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious as could be. You have whined about it for years.

Why would I read one of your threads?

Your content in spurious, mate. Offensive too, you are some hollywood redneck, Tom Ray.

So just toss us a few cites, please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Life has moved on to sillyville. NY'ers are now allowed to own guns with magazine capacities above 7. They just can't load more than 7 rounds. Neener neener neener.

 

OK, the law doesn't really come with a "neener neener neener" but it should.

 

I'd do a victory lap if that stupid law went away. Let's consider it on its merits, as you suggest.

 

Do you think it has any? If so, what are they?

 

Tom, I know zip about guns. But I know that in the fifties and sixties the shotguns of hunters were fucking limited to three shells. Without outrage, silly girl.

You are handwringing over silly details while peddling dangerous gun policies.

 

You also failed to answer my question.

Boothy has asked about this matter again today.

He is requesting the responsible, lawful collection of firearms from restricted indivuduals.

 

I am not asking for a childish discussion here.

Please weigh in on the need for apparently righteous (presumably lawful) confiscation of the guns of known felons.

My point is that some gun confiscation is warranted, depending. Hello?

 

 

I replied to Boozy 5 days ago.

 

Is failing to answer questions bad or something? If it is, prove it.

 

Do you think the law requiring that only seven rounds be loaded into a magazine has any merits? If so, what are they?

 

 

Waaah I only get seven bullets. Waaah. Waaaah.

Intermediate scrutiny means that you need to demonstrate that eight bullets or more generate public safety. Souce: Adam Winkler

Good luck.

 

The "merit" lies in the limitation of gun mayhem, Mr. Ray. Damage control, duh.

A similar merit lies in limiting battlefield ammo, and limiting gun "rights" to indoors.

These limits need to be imposed by those outside the present gun culture to generate pro-active results.

When such limits are ineffective (or gutted), gun confiscation becomes more attractive.

Where is your damage control, mate?

 

A middle ground would offer some, and would grant the opportunity to get the second amendment to work, to develop a sustainable level of risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Waah, the ban on guns holding more than seven rounds was unconstitional and was overturned. Waah.

 

Now we just have to pretend that violent criminals won't load more than seven rounds.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of battlefield ammo, ammoman has a pretty good price on some .22 for my dad's old "assault weapon."

 

Ooooh! It says AR! And Tactical! That's a code word you know.
Maybe I'll buy some. I'll have the scariest squirrel assault weapon in the county!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Waah, the ban on guns holding more than seven rounds was unconstitional and was overturned. Waah.

 

Now we just have to pretend that violent criminals won't load more than seven rounds.

 

First off, you both oppose, and deny the existence of, plenty of constitutional laws.

The law in our present conversation is entirely constitutional, and it shit-cans AW's per circuit court authority.

The SC chose to stand by, mum, remember?

 

Secondly, violent criminals aren't the problem. The actual gun mayhem numbers say that lover's triangle gunplay far outweighs secondary crime gun incidents.

Guns are the "tool" of choice for jilted lovers, not criminals.

63% of femicides relate to love gone wrong, and only one rape in fourteen is a stranger. (Source: FBI report).

Stranger danger and crimes with guns run around 12% to 15% of total gun homicides.

We law abiders are killing each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ooooh! It says AR! And Tactical! That's a code word you know.
Maybe I'll buy some. I'll have the scariest squirrel assault weapon in the county!

 

The cheap seats love both tactical and AR. Yes. And they would love your blogging, too.

You could and would validate them with your quasi-informed study and your mis-quoted case law. Who trained you, mate?

From Dylann Roof, right through to Randy Weaver, David Koresh, and on to Timothy McVeigh, they would want their fill from you, IMO.

 

Sure you are not responsible for their actions, directly. But it takes a village.

My concern is that you validate their beliefs, all day long. (You would be both an influence and a resource for them.)

My additional concern is your cheeky and disruptive racial content, as if to dumb down needed discussion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NGS%20Trailer%20Park_zpsezxvnpzx.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are laws now, which if enforced, would prevent an abuser from possessing a gun. The problem is that they are not enforced, and without enforcement, they are useless. I am all in favor of having abusers gun rights removed, but what I would like to see along with that is a search by the police of the abusers residence and vehicles to make sure they really don't have any guns. Most of these abusers are already prohibited, so any guns they have are illegal, and they will not turn them over without the police searching their house and vehicles.

 

With that being said, guns as a percentage of weapon used in a homicide are lower in domestic abuse cases than with cases involving strangers. While being beaten to death is higher as a percentage in cases of domestic abuse vs strangers. Guns are still the single largest weapon of choice, but the favoring of a gun is smaller when talking about domestic violence. I am not sure why you are focusing on domestic violence, it is not as if an AWB ban or mag capacity limits have any effect on that, and it is not the majority of homicides by gun. Further, when you are talking about the large percentage of cases where an abuser physically overpowers a victim and stabs or beats them to death, a gun can be an effective deterrent. It is not that more guns is better or fewer guns are better, it is more complicated than that. One thing is for certain, banning pistol grips on semi auto rifles will do absolutely nothing to reduce homicides arising out of domestic violence.

 

I still contend that if we really want to reduce violence, then the most effective thing we can do is to end the war on drugs, to make it easier to commit someone for treatment involuntarily, and to make PFA orders more effective by actually having the police enforce it and the terms of it, including searching the abuser's residence and vehicles for weapons, and to put real teeth into abuse of an order. We don't do any of those things now, if we did our violence stats would plummet.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are laws now, which if enforced, would prevent an abuser from possessing a gun. The problem is that they are not enforced, and without enforcement, they are useless. I am all in favor of having abusers gun rights removed, but what I would like to see along with that is a search by the police of the abusers residence and vehicles to make sure they really don't have any guns. Most of these abusers are already prohibited, so any guns they have are illegal, and they will not turn them over without the police searching their house and vehicles.

 

With that being said, guns as a percentage of weapon used in a homicide are lower in domestic abuse cases than with cases involving strangers. Where's your cite? While being beaten to death is higher as a percentage in cases of domestic abuse vs strangers. Guns are still the single largest weapon of choice, but the favoring of a gun is smaller when talking about domestic violence. I am not sure why you are focusing on domestic violence, it is not as if an AWB ban or mag capacity limits have any effect on that, and it is not the majority of homicides by gun. Further, when you are talking about the large percentage of cases where an abuser physically overpowers a victim and stabs or beats them to death, a gun can be an effective deterrent. It is not that more guns is better or fewer guns are better, it is more complicated than that. One thing is for certain, banning pistol grips on semi auto rifles will do absolutely nothing to reduce homicides arising out of domestic violence. STRAW MAN ALERT. Subject at hand: seven rounds sounds like about six more holes in the single wide.

 

I still contend that if we really want to reduce violence, then the most effective thing we can do is to end the war on drugs, to make it easier to commit someone for treatment involuntarily, and to make PFA orders more effective by actually having the police enforce it and the terms of it, including searching the abuser's residence and vehicles for weapons, and to put real teeth into abuse of an order. We don't do any of those things now, if we did our violence stats would plummet.

 

 

 

"guns as a percentage of weapon used in a homicide are lower in domestic abuse cases than with cases involving strangers...etc)

 

You've made a stream of statements in your post, based on what?

My understanding is that the #1 LE danger, bar none, in the DV house call.

With DV, too many guns, plus common human dynamics, plus visceral emotions = a big problem.

 

Our discussion now covers one cross section: how do females die at the hands of guns.

 

Mmmm i think romantic motivation is bigger overall killing both sexes than guns during secondary crimes, which is at a 18% max fatality rate.

 

If you are saying this is about women killed by lovers vs women killed by strangers, you definitely lose that one.

Do some reading, Rev.

When Men Murder Women: An Analysis of 2014 Homicide Data (September 2016)

 

when there were one or more guns in the home, the risk of homicide increased more than three times.19 The increased risk of homicide associated with firearms was attributable to homicides at the hands of a spouse, intimate acquaintance, or close relative. Furthermore, a gun in the home is a key factor in the escalation of nonfatal spousal abuse to homicide...

 

The study’s lead author, Dr. David Hemenway, concluded that “the difference in female homicide victimization rates between the U.S. and these other industrialized nations is very large and is closely tied to levels of gun ownership. The relationship cannot be explained by differences in urbanization or income inequality.”21

 

Statistically, guns are a hazard to the safety of U.S. women. The phenomena is tracked and reported each October by an interesting source.

 

The work quoted below is employing rare pre-Tiahrt numbers.

 

40 A Deadly Myth

Women, Handguns, and Self-Defense

The 1996 study Guns in America found that only 6.6 percent of adult American women owned a handgun—less than one out of every 10 women. But of these women, nearly 85 percent owned their handguns for self-defense—a figure that offers gunmakers continual hope in their marketing endeavors.3 Yet how often are handguns actually used by women to kill in self-defense? The answer, as revealed by unpublished Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) data, is hardly ever. Women were murdered with handguns more than 1,200 times in 1998 alone. As these numbers reveal, handguns don't offer protection for women, but instead guarantee peril.4

In 1998, for every time a woman used a handgun to kill in self-defense, 101 women were murdered with a handgun. In 1998, for every time a woman used a handgun to kill an intimate acquaintance in self-defense, 83 woman were murdered by an intimate acquaintance with a handgun. In 1998, for every time a woman used a handgun to kill a stranger in self-defense, 302 woman were murdered with a handgun.Pasted from <http://www.vpc.org/studies/myth.htm>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raz'r, on 03 Jan 2016 - 10:42 AM, said:



Probably is an issue. I think Rico pointed out there are few officers in the "confiscate" squad. Maybe there should be more?




R Booze, on 03 Jan 2016 - 2:30 PM, said:


Yes, there should be. 'Cuz I'm not real big on having thousands of convicted felons owning or living in a house full of guns. And since there's already law(s) on the books stating that doing so will result in a very quick trip back to jail and/or prison, these laws need to be enforced. And by many more LEO's than are currently assigned to do so. Just not sure why Suckramento or whoever won't pursue this issue....



Publius Johnson Posted 04 January 2016 - 02:54 AM


Sending more officers around to gather guns and arrest felons in possession doesn't seem like a good idea to me.



It would alter some behavior, causing some who have served their time on felony convictions to hide their guns better.



It would expose friends and family of those people to the confiscation raids. We have seen that the presence of a gun can be a pretext for no-knock raids and the resulting Flash Bang Babies, not to mention occasionally targeting the wrong house.



If you had a felony conviction from your cocaine days, you'd still be just as lovable. Lots of other people who have committed felonies but have been caught are also non-violent offenders. If the confiscation squads focused solely on those convicted of a violent felony, the idea would make a bit more sense. But that's not how the law reads.



I supported Obama's pardons of various non-violent drug offenders. I know the government can't ensure they will remain disarmed. I know an expanded confiscation squad won't change that fact. I still support their release.


http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=170850&p=5182704


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SAFE Act: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
 

Quote

 

the deputies produced an official document demanding that Hall, a 70-year-old Vietnam veteran who is a retired pipefitter, turn over his guns to them on the spot. On the document Hall said he was described as "mentally defective."

When Hall told police he'd never had any mental issues, Hall said, deputies told him he must have done something that triggered the order under the New York state's SAFE Act.

The deputies left that night with six guns - two handguns and four long guns.

Hall, who lives in the Oneida County hamlet of Taberg, hired a lawyer and secured affidavits from local hospitals to prove he hadn't been recently treated. At one point, he was told he'd have to get some of his guns back from a gun shop.

Eventually, his lawyer convinced a judge that authorities had him confused with someone else who had sought care and that his weapons should never have been seized.

To this day, no one at a hospital or the state and local agencies involved in taking Hall's guns has admitted to Hall that a mistake was made, explained what happened or apologized. A county judge did acknowledge the mistake and helped him get his guns back.

...

Although it took Hall several months to get his guns back, he's happy to have the ordeal behind him.

Hall said he does believe what happened to him points out a legal flaw. People should have the right to know why they were flagged, he said.

 

Why would they admit a mistake or apologize? He's just a gun nut, after all, and he eventually got his guns back, so there's no problem.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A judge helped this man, after orderly due process.

Quote

Why would they admit a mistake or apologize?

Tom, you don't admit your own mistakes. You haven't retracted your claims that the founding fathers confiscated no guns. (They did so on three occasions, and the rationale varied.) You claim that gun restrictions are ineffective, but the crime rates are 42% higher in states with weak gun laws, as opposed to states with responsible gun laws. 

You are a Libertarian and a CATO supporter, but you can't discuss historical mistakes presented within Heller.

Quote

WILLIAM BLACKSTONE SAID WHAT?  History Lesson 101, Interpreting Text Without Historical Context.

 Why the Supreme Court Must Reevaluate the Embarrassing 'Standard Model' Moving Forward 

see p. 1823 Fordham Urban Law Journal, Vol. 39, pg 1727, 2012

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Geez, Joe. It's right friggin here! How do you have so much trouble finding the thread about me when you want to talk about me?

Right here is the location where you expected others to admit mistakes, to apologize. You are an active character around here. My beef is with your expectation.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting thread. It began the month of the shock of Sandy Hook. Jeff has lost the keen aggression shown on page one of this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Right here is the location where you expected others to admit mistakes, to apologize. You are an active character around here. My beef is with your expectation.

 

 

 

Take it to Tom Ray Anarchy.

The grabbers in NY won't admit a mistake was made and you don't have any problem with their failure to admit their mistaken confiscation of the man's guns.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Take it to Tom Ray Anarchy.

The grabbers in NY won't admit a mistake was made and you don't have any problem with their failure to admit their mistaken confiscation of the man's guns.

 

Sorry, but his is the thread you screwed up on, You have no charter to ask others to correct their mistakes, when you don't correct your own mistakes. 

Quote

Tom Ray: The SAF was the entity most responsible for the Heller case getting to the Supreme Court ...

Heller was a CATO show, baby. Levy bragged about his intentional power by being the sole financier, as co-counsel with Gura. No honorable mention was given to CATO's Neilly. Levy said he accepted no help from others, including the SAF, just because.

An accidental mistake, if corrected, might be okay around here, but an intentional mistake speaks poorly of the source. Which type was used when you cooked the books on Missouri's gun murder increase after they cancelled background checks? When corrected for conflating these deaths with poisonings and strangulations, why did you just deny what you did? That was dishonest propaganda, an intentional mistake.

Quote

Your high horse is imaginary, Tom. You are the king of your own talking points, eh? We find vast areas of our social issues, court issues, research issues, and now historical issues which you can't discuss. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/7/2017 at 4:39 PM, mikewof said:

But okay, if you don't like the changes that the "grabbers" suggest, then why not be proactive with some proposed solution?


Possibly because grabbers don't want to listen to us and enforce that desire?

As in, the "emergency" in New York created by the Sandy Hook shootings.

Normal rules of debate suspended specifically to avoid hearing from gun nutz on this issue.

(Fingers in ears) NYAHH, NYAHH, NYAAH, WE'RE NOT LISTENING! Now why don't you say something?

Umm... because you're not listening?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Uncooperative Tom said:


Possibly because grabbers don't want to listen to us and enforce that desire?

As in, the "emergency" in New York created by the Sandy Hook shootings.

Normal rules of debate suspended specifically to avoid hearing from gun nutz on this issue.

(Fingers in ears) NYAHH, NYAHH, NYAAH, WE'RE NOT LISTENING! Now why don't you say something?

Umm... because you're not listening?

You made eight posts about elk antlers on AW's, FFS. We have squirrel assault rifles for eleven months. What a silly fool.  You feature disgraced research and fabricated history, and a distorted bill of rights...to giddily promote gun violence. 

Who wants to listen to it?

New York citizens have spoken their piece about guns for thirty years, they don't care for them. And the higher courts firmly backed up this "secret" legislation, aka the SAFE Act. puttling severe limits on the possession of AW's in NY. Get over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:


Possibly because grabbers don't want to listen to us and enforce that desire?

As in, the "emergency" in New York created by the Sandy Hook shootings.

Normal rules of debate suspended specifically to avoid hearing from gun nutz on this issue.

(Fingers in ears) NYAHH, NYAHH, NYAAH, WE'RE NOT LISTENING! Now why don't you say something?

Umm... because you're not listening?

Normy. This is rude and dishonest. You've taken my post, moved it to an old, inactive thread, reactivated that otherwise dead thread, and made it seem that I posted here.

I'm happy to respond to you if you respond to the thread in which I originally posted, which isn't this thread.

I don't know how long you've been doing this, maybe I never noticed before, but it's a dishonest tactic unless you specifically note that you moved my response.

And actually, when I think about it, what you've done here is exactly the problem, and why you need to be slapped by the gun grabbers. Because instead of addressing the problem in your community and industry as an adult, you're instead spending your time doing this.

Earth to Normy, please come in ... I'm not the enemy here. I'm not the reason that your toys will be taken away, the grabbers aren't the reason your toys will be taken away. Your toys will be taken away because of those maniacs in your community who insist on murdering people's children. And rather than address that reality, you're playing on the train tracks making silly faces at your perceived enemy. The train is barreling down on you, it will flatten your toys and you'll have yourself to blame.

Normy, that thing I mentioned about produced waters? I'm proactive in that area, I speak at government meetings, I write articles, I address the problem. I want to be part of that solution. You should try something like that, rather than only haunting this place.

Luv ya Normy. Now do something. Use your incredible power in your community to help end this insanity of psychopaths shooting babies. 'kay?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, mikewof said:

Normy. This is rude and dishonest. You've taken my post, moved it to an old, inactive thread, reactivated that otherwise dead thread, and made it seem that I posted here.

I'm happy to respond to you if you respond to the thread in which I originally posted, which isn't this thread.

I don't know how long you've been doing this, maybe I never noticed before, but it's a dishonest tactic unless you specifically note that you moved my response.

I moved your reply here because this is the thread that has the example I wanted to discuss. If I brought it over there, I'd get, "Why are you bringing stuff from another thread here?"

Dishonest? Just like any quoted post, an interested person can follow the link back and see where it was posted. It's a sourced quote.

I've been doing it for years. Sometimes I note that the material is from another thread, sometimes I don't. In this case, I thought it obvious since the most recent reply was from August and yours was much more recent.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I moved your reply here because this is the thread that has the example I wanted to discuss. If I brought it over there, I'd get, "Why are you bringing stuff from another thread here?"

Dishonest? Just like any quoted post, an interested person can follow the link back and see where it was posted. It's a sourced quote.

I've been doing it for years. Sometimes I note that the material is from another thread, sometimes I don't. In this case, I thought it obvious since the most recent reply was from August and yours was much more recent.

I've no problem with you doing that if you mention that you moved it. Just looking at the quote, I've no idea how to tell from which thread it came.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mikewof said:

I've no problem with you doing that if you mention that you moved it. Just looking at the quote, I've no idea how to tell from which thread it came.

Oh, so you just don't know how to work the forum software. You're not alone. I made a helpful image for your elk.

The dates on this cartoon showing you where the link is should give you an idea how long I've been doing this:

quote-linkback.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the cartoon Normy, I didn't know about that function. Do I need to now make a habit of hitting that when you respond? I guess I wasn't wasting enough time on here already?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, mikewof said:

Do I need to now make a habit of hitting that when you respond?

As much as you've needed to for the past 5 years or more.

If you wonder where/when anyone posted something, that's the button to hit. When people respond to only part of a post and you wonder what else was said, that's the button to hit. It works on all quoted posts, not just mine.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

As much as you've needed to for the past 5 years or more.

If you wonder where/when anyone posted something, that's the button to hit. When people respond to only part of a post and you wonder what else was said, that's the button to hit. It works on all quoted posts, not just mine.

You're looking at it the way an academic or a reference librarian would ... But I suspect that most of us don't approach this forum like that. For me, it's more like conversations at the bar over beer or sushi.

I just want to converse, discuss, not necessarily cross-reference my conversations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NY Pistol Possession Permits Upheld
 

Quote

 

“While NYS’s firearms licensing laws implicate the core Second Amendment right, they do not substantially burden it,” said Geraci, going on to say, “The licensing laws place no more than ‘marginal, incremental, or even appreciable restraint on the right to keep and bear arms.'”

The suit, brought in 2015, argued there are a number of unconstitutional roadblocks to obtaining a handgun in the Empire State — chief among these being the Sullivan Act. The law, one of the first gun control statutes in the nation, dates back to 1911 and requires anyone desiring a firearm small enough to be concealed to obtain a license. Among the plaintiffs in the case, some held that such licenses can be elusive, with applicants often waiting years or denied outright.

 

Meanwhile, there's a looming problem with about a million Uncooperative New Yawkuhs
 

Quote

 

Two New York Republicans want to pump the brakes on a problematic plan to recertify 1.25 million pistol permit holders and kick it down the road.

The permits, required to own a handgun in the state, are set to expire at the end of the month due to the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act, signed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo in 2013. The problem is that most facing the mandatory recertification haven’t done so, with Assemblyman Marc Butler advising only 204,000 have recertified as of last month.

This bureaucratic quagmire concerning pistol recertification is a real threat which could turn many otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals,” said Butler, stressing additional time is needed to sort the problem out. “The mess that is growing out of the pistol permit recertification requirement is one of the many concerns I had over the governor’s so-called SAFE Act.”

Legislation submitted by Butler this week in company with Assemblyman Brian Miller would set a new deadline of Jan. 31, 2019. Miller says the “rushed and reckless” implementation of the SAFE Act has now left potentially hundreds of thousands of handgun owners with lifetime permits in a lurch.

“It remains unclear how many permit holders have been notified of the need to recertify and how many have not,” Miller said. “That is unacceptable. Even worse, because of this flaw in the system, permit holders would be forced to surrender their handguns and possibly their long guns as well due to the nature of the ‘crime.’”

 

When grabberz say they're issuing a "lifetime" permit, what they mean is "until we have the votes to nullify it."

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2017 at 2:35 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

. I made a helpful image for your elk...

...and I keep it in the database I don't have. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/9/2017 at 5:38 AM, mikewof said:

Normy. This is rude and dishonest. You've taken my post, moved it to an old, inactive thread, reactivated that otherwise dead thread, and made it seem that I posted here.

I'm happy to respond to you if you respond to the thread in which I originally posted, which isn't this thread.

I don't know how long you've been doing this, maybe I never noticed before, but it's a dishonest tactic unless you specifically note that you moved my response.

And actually, when I think about it, what you've done here is exactly the problem, and why you need to be slapped by the gun grabbers. Because instead of addressing the problem in your community and industry as an adult, you're instead spending your time doing this.

Earth to Normy, please come in ... I'm not the enemy here. I'm not the reason that your toys will be taken away, the grabbers aren't the reason your toys will be taken away. Your toys will be taken away because of those maniacs in your community who insist on murdering people's children. And rather than address that reality, you're playing on the train tracks making silly faces at your perceived enemy. The train is barreling down on you, it will flatten your toys and you'll have yourself to blame.

Normy, that thing I mentioned about produced waters? I'm proactive in that area, I speak at government meetings, I write articles, I address the problem. I want to be part of that solution. You should try something like that, rather than only haunting this place.

Luv ya Normy. Now do something. Use your incredible power in your community to help end this insanity of psychopaths shooting babies. 'kay?

This covers it pretty well. But I want to draw attention to the dishonesty and evasiveness which are the MO in play. Tom employs falsehoods to re-direct the train. 

And tribally, the thirteen month tsunami of "battlefield .22's" does not honor our community. Just sayin'. Neither does habitual race-baiting,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/18/2018 at 4:56 PM, jocal505 said:

Just sayin'. Neither does habitual race-baiting,

I agree.  People who say that blacks are more violent and volatile and less trustworthy with guns than whites sure seems like race-baiting.  Saying that armed blacks make you afraid but armed whites only make you concerned also seems like race-baiting.  Just saying.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I agree.  People who say that blacks are more violent and volatile and less trustworthy with guns than whites sure seems like race-baiting.  Saying that armed blacks make you afraid but armed whites only make you concerned also seems like race-baiting.  Just saying.

Your campaign is amusing, in a twisted sorta way. You have been baited into an extended discussion of MLK... because of the fluffy bit  that he got no gun permit. I've decided to enjoy  and to weapponize being your poster boy for racism.

Hi Jefie. You want to address the cause of violence, not the tool of violence, you claim. Well here's how to defeat the mechanics and motivations in play.

Quote

The need is for man to overcome oppression and violence, without resorting to oppression and violence.

Nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time.

Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. MLK.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, jocal505 said:

The need is for man to overcome oppression and violence, without resorting to oppression and violence.

Nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time.

Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. MLK.

That's a fine sentiment, and one I support.  But in real life, there's a caveat: you have to survive, in the meantime.  You have to survive long enough to organize, you have to survive while you organize.  I have a ton of respect & admiration for MLK; but I also have a lot of respect & admiration for these guys.  Nonviolent confrontation is necessary to effect social change.  But it isn't sufficient; you also need self-defense, (which is NOT the same thing as violence) as a backstop.

Also: some would even argue that nonviolence depends, in some part, on there being a militant alternative option, also visible, as a carrot/stick sort of persuasion.  That MLK wouldn't have been so effective without the implicit "or else" of the Panthers.  I'm not sure about that, but I'm not about to dismiss it out-of-hand, either.

What I'm objecting to is this notion that King thought people should just lie down and take it, when their nonviolence was met with violence.  The historical record shows that it's the NAACP that backed off when someone advocated or practiced self-defence, and King who would defend their right to defend themselves.  Examples:

 

"After the Klan threatened to murder movement leader Dr. Robert Hayling, he declared he would defend himself. When KKK night-riders attacked Lincolnville — St. Augustine's Black community — residents returned fire and a Klansman was killed. NAACP activist Rev. Goldie Eubanks and three others were indicted for murder. Disturbed by Hayling's militancy and his support for self-defense, the national NAACP removed him from office. Hayling, Eubanks, Henry & Katherine "Kat" Twine, and other freedom fighters then left the NAACP and contacted SCLC for assistance. (See St. Augustine Movement — 1963.)

Dr. King answers St. Augustine's call and the St. Augustine Chapter of SCLC is formed."

http://www.crmvet.org/tim/timhis64.htm#1964staug

 

"After returning to North Carolina from military service in WWII, Robert F. Williams organizes the Union County Branch of the NAACP. After a Black child drowns in an unsupervised swimming-hole in 1957, they ask that Blacks be allowed to use Monroe's city-owned swimming pool one day a week. The city council refuses on the grounds that if Blacks use the pool the water has to be drained and replaced before white children can use it. Williams leads a group of Black children who attempt to integrate the tax-supported pool. Monroe is a center of Ku Klux Klan activity, and they threaten to kill the parents of the Black children. Williams organizes Black military veterans into armed self-defense teams. KKK night-riders attack a Black neighborhood but are driven off.

(...)Because he advocates armed self-defense, Williams is suspended by the NAACP. He responds that he is calling for self-defense, not acts of war: "We as men should stand up as men and protect our women and children. I am a man, and I will walk upright as a man should. I will not crawl." Though he's an advocate of nonviolence, Dr. King acknowledges that Blacks have a right to defend themselves against attack, "When the Negro uses force in self-defense he does not forfeit support — he may even win it, by the courage and self-respect it reflects."

http://www.crmvet.org/tim/timhis57.htm#1957monroe

 

When you paint MLK's non-violent resistance as pacifism... in my eyes, you're doing something very similar to that Fox News commentator, last week, who argued that MLK day shouldn't be "politicized", that's it's a day for "national unity" not "political division" like kneeling during the anthem, or BLM. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, frenchie said:

That's a fine sentiment, and one I support.  But in real life, there's a caveat: you have to survive, in the meantime.  You have to survive long enough to organize, you have to survive while you organize.  I have a ton of respect & admiration for MLK; but I also have a lot of respect & admiration for these guys.  Nonviolent confrontation is necessary to effect social change.  But it isn't sufficient; you also need self-defense, (which is NOT the same thing as violence) as a backstop.

Also: some would even argue that nonviolence depends, in some part, on there being a militant alternative option, also visible, as a carrot/stick sort of persuasion.  That MLK wouldn't have been so effective without the implicit "or else" of the Panthers.  I'm not sure about that, but I'm not about to dismiss it out-of-hand, either. Um. The Panthers were scary, the worst nightmare personified, Any alternative to them was quite attractive, and MLK made it to TV first.

What I'm objecting to is this notion that King thought people should just lie down and take it, when their nonviolence was met with violence. Well, with both MLK and Mohandas, public, non-violent resistence at factory entrances was the real weapon. Even the threat of it. When they come to get you, no resistance by the hundreds, go rubbery with your muscles, the whole thing. Defending oneself in private was not opposed by either figure, at any point. 

That said, their basic belief systems consciously and firmly opposed the chain of violence.

The historical record shows that it's the NAACP that backed off when someone advocated or practiced self-defence, and King who would defend their right to defend themselves.  Examples:

 

"After the Klan threatened to murder movement leader Dr. Robert Hayling, he declared he would defend himself. When KKK night-riders attacked Lincolnville — St. Augustine's Black community — residents returned fire and a Klansman was killed. NAACP activist Rev. Goldie Eubanks and three others were indicted for murder. Disturbed by Hayling's militancy and his support for self-defense, the national NAACP removed him from office. Hayling, Eubanks, Henry & Katherine "Kat" Twine, and other freedom fighters then left the NAACP and contacted SCLC for assistance. (See St. Augustine Movement — 1963.)

Dr. King answers St. Augustine's call and the St. Augustine Chapter of SCLC is formed."

http://www.crmvet.org/tim/timhis64.htm#1964staug

 

"After returning to North Carolina from military service in WWII, Robert F. Williams organizes the Union County Branch of the NAACP. After a Black child drowns in an unsupervised swimming-hole in 1957, they ask that Blacks be allowed to use Monroe's city-owned swimming pool one day a week. The city council refuses on the grounds that if Blacks use the pool the water has to be drained and replaced before white children can use it. Williams leads a group of Black children who attempt to integrate the tax-supported pool. Monroe is a center of Ku Klux Klan activity, and they threaten to kill the parents of the Black children. Williams organizes Black military veterans into armed self-defense teams. KKK night-riders attack a Black neighborhood but are driven off.

(...)Because he advocates armed self-defense, Williams is suspended by the NAACP. He responds that he is calling for self-defense, not acts of war: "We as men should stand up as men and protect our women and children. I am a man, and I will walk upright as a man should. I will not crawl." Though he's an advocate of nonviolence, Dr. King acknowledges that Blacks have a right to defend themselves against attack, "When the Negro uses force in self-defense he does not forfeit support — he may even win it, by the courage and self-respect it reflects."

http://www.crmvet.org/tim/timhis57.htm#1957monroe

 

When you paint MLK's non-violent resistance as pacifism... in my eyes, you're doing something very similar to that Fox News commentator, last week, who argued that MLK day shouldn't be "politicized", that's it's a day for "national unity" not "political division" like kneeling during the anthem, or BLM. 

What a dynamite post, frenchie. Very well presented. Spot-on IMO, and inoffensive throughout. 

Yes, the guns were all about with the civil rights workers. Yes, they did the trick as tools. My name is Joe and I admit the guns were needed by the freedom rider types, on the one level. Yet the game was played, frenchie, on a different level.

Here's the deal. MLK blipped and channelled Gandhi, which takes this into certain philosophical territory. The tactics were focused non-violence, they had to to with levering civil disobedience. Both men trained community leaders to gather or train individuals in concerted patterns of self control to block factory gates, publicize Woolworth discrimination, and place Rosa Parks in the front of the bus, simply by calmly clogging local jails.

Beyond the demonstration scenes, the Dude MLK got people to respect themselves so much that they would, out of mutual respect, hurt no others. The philosophy reflected a unique blend of Hinduism and Islam (stemming from the respective beliefs of Gandhi's parents).

MLK extended these non-violent thoughts and principles directly to VIetnam and wars in general.  Gandhi had tried the same, but eventually had  supported the Allied efforts of WWII.

 

And so, frenchie, on behalf of the forum and the community, I object to the flimsy, manipulative, fluffy, and direct association between MLK and shall issue. Any person making this argument even once is out to lunch. If he goes OCD with the association for four years, IMO he is a cheap (and probably worthless) racebaiter. YMMV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, frenchie said:

But it isn't sufficient; you also need self-defense, (which is NOT the same thing as violence) as a backstop.

No no no.... didn't you get the memo?  Self-defense, according to joey, IS absolutely violence.  If you defend yourself with toolz, you are even a vigilante.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

And so, frenchie, on behalf of the forum and the community, I object to the flimsy, manipulative, fluffy, and direct association between MLK and shall issue. Any person making this argument even once is out to lunch. If he goes OCD with the association for four years, IMO he is a cheap (and probably worthless) racebaiter. YMMV.

Sorry, knucklehead - you don't get to speak for the forum and the community.  Had MLK been able to get a CCW permit in a Shall issue state, he would have been armed.  That's right, your hero was a gun-loving, gun-toting - and had the sheriff allowed not denied it because he was black - MLK would have been a concealed pistol-packing bad MOFO negro.  

Wrap your head around that one joe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Sorry, knucklehead - you don't get to speak for the forum and the community.  Had MLK been able to get a CCW permit in a Shall issue state, he would have been armed.  That's right, your hero was a gun-loving, gun-toting - and had the sheriff allowed not denied it because he was black - MLK would have been a concealed pistol-packing bad MOFO negro.  

Wrap your head around that one joe.

MLK as a gun warrior? Dragging MLK through the mud much? Drooling, too?

 

King's battle wasn't about guns. He was no poster boy for gunplay, mate. But because of shallow understandings, he was once as disparaged as Rev. Mosteller.

Quote

"Maybe we just have to admit that the day of violence is here, and maybe we have to just give up and let violence take its course. The nation won't listen to our voice - maybe it'll heed the voice of violence." attributed to MLK

Even so, to consider the man in whole cloth, honestly, and to consider his goals and vision, is to pointedly ignore guns entirely. At least IMO.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:
14 hours ago, frenchie said:

But it isn't sufficient; you also need self-defense, (which is NOT the same thing as violence) as a backstop.

No no no.... didn't you get the memo?  Self-defense, according to joey, IS absolutely violence.  If you defend yourself with toolz, you are even a vigilante.  

That depends, Jeffie. It depends on the mindset and pre-conditioning of the actor. You are quite fascinated by guns, PLUS yer way out there, since you keep bringing us your shoot-the -rapist scenarios.

  • Your self defense logic has you shooting shirtless tirechuckers, in fear of fists
  • d'ranger's self defense logic was otherwise.
  • Tom is the One Limit Shootah, he plugs you after the second shove 
  • I would go with discretion, not valor, myself
  • frenchie, who knows, but would get the benefit of the doubt from me until he didn't

It depends.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

Um. The Panthers were scary, the worst nightmare personified, Any alternative to them was quite attractive, and MLK made it to TV first.

Gonna have to agree to disagree on this.  Not to say I think they were the best solution, but I think the Panthers get an unfairly bad rap. 

 

Quote

 

And so, frenchie, on behalf of the forum and the community, I object to the flimsy, manipulative, fluffy, and direct association between MLK and shall issue. Any person making this argument even once is out to lunch. If he goes OCD with the association for four years, IMO he is a cheap (and probably worthless) racebaiter. YMMV.

I agree with that, to an extent.  Jeff's recent post above (#745), for example, is a bit fuckin much, to put it mildly.  This is, after all, the man who also said that

“By our readiness to allow arms to be purchased at will and fired at whim, by allowing our movie and television screens to teach our children that the hero is one who masters the art of shooting and the technique of killing, by allowing all these developments, we have created an atmosphere in which violence and hatred have become popular pastimes.”

But I don't agree it should be taboo to ever mention that King at one point applied for a carry permit, and that some racist Sheriff denied him that permit, as an example of how gun control laws can be (and have been) a tool of racist oppression.  Which is all I've ever seen Tom doing, when he brings it up.  He's not implying anything about King, he's pointing out something about the Sheriff that denied King the permit: namely, that gun control gave him more power to limit King's self-defense options than he would have had, otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, frenchie said:

But I don't agree it should be taboo to ever mention that King at one point applied for a carry permit, and that some racist Sheriff denied him that permit, as an example of how gun control laws can be (and have been) a tool of racist oppression.  Which is all I've ever seen Tom doing, when he brings it up.  He's not implying anything about King, he's pointing out something about the Sheriff that denied King the permit: namely, that gun control gave him more power to limit King's self-defense options than he would have had, otherwise.

Glad to see someone reads and comprehends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A man with no criminal record had 16 rifles
 

Quote

 

Cops raiding a Queens home Thursday found a small arsenal of guns and ammo.

Officers hauled off 16 rifles, a crossbow and 13,000 rounds of ammunition around 9:34 a.m. from the Queens Village house of Keith Harvey, 44, a contractor.

...

Harvey, who has no prior criminal record, was charged with multiple count of illegal weapons possession.

“Illegal firearms pose an extreme risk to the public, and in Queens County creating your own warehouse of lethal shotguns and rifles will not be tolerated,” Queens District Attorney Richard Brown said.

He was arraigned Friday and bail was set at $150,000. Harvey remains jailed at Vernon Bain Center until his next court date May 11.

Harvey’s friend and neighbor, Joe Russo, 50, said there was no reason for all the alarm.

“These allegations are insane,” he said. “He is a gun collector. His father was one too. He gave him the guns. It’s amazing what some people will come up with. He’s a hardworking man who has never been in trouble.”

Some of the weapons and ammo were found in Harvey’s gun safe in his dining room.

It was the third arrest in the past two weeks of a person with a huge cache of illegal weapons in their home.

On April 16, cops found 70 guns and 50,000 bullets in the Bayside home of a man named Ronald Drabman.

They found an AK-47 rifle, two Colt AR-15 rifles, five Bushmaster XM-15 rifles and an Uzi submachine gun in Drabman’s home.

Cops believe Drabman was a collector.

On April 15, Robert Czak, 32, of Long Island was arrested after cops found 19 guns in his house, 200 high-capacity magazines, gas masks, knives, night vision goggles and a silencer.

 

Makes me wonder what led to the raids on these three individuals?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cuomo weaponizing regulatory power
 

Quote

 

Do you need another demonstration of how dangerous regulatory power can be when it's weaponized by politicians? Look no further than New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo's recent directive to financial regulators. Cuomo wants them to pressure private companies to break ties with the National Rifle Association (NRA). The "or else" is just a hair from being overt.

"I am directing the Department of Financial Services to urge insurers and bankers statewide to determine whether any relationship they may have with the NRA or similar organizations sends the wrong message to their clients and their communities who often look to them for guidance and support," the governor wrote in a statement.

The Department of Financial Services, which regulates the banking and insurance industries in New York, followed up with guidance letters to insurance companies and banks.

The two letters caution recipients that "[t]hey are in the business of managing risks, including their own reputational risks, by making risk management decisions on a regular basis regarding if and how they will do business with certain sectors or entities." The guidance then includes slight variations on the following language from the banking letter:

The Department encourages its chartered and licensed financial institutions to continue evaluating and managing their risks, including reputational risks, that may arise from their dealings with the NRA or similar gun promotion organizations, if any, as well as continued assessment of compliance with their own codes of social responsibility. The Department encourages regulated institutions to review any relationships they have with the NRA or similar gun promotion organizations, and to take prompt actions to managing these risks and promote public health and safety.

Keep in mind that the regulatory body that oversees these industries is warning companies under its power that they may be assuming reputational risk—a regulated area that draws official attention—by doing business with legal organizations including the NRA. This reputational risk is said to exist because these groups are "gun promotion organizations," which boils down to nothing more than them taking a public policy positions at odds with those favored by the state's political leaders.

 

I know, I know, anything is justified if the target is the NRA.

But the target won't always be the NRA...
 

Quote

 

Weaponizing regulatory power—if normalized—opens the door for Cuomo's political opponents to do the same to his allies in the places where they govern. If liberals demonize the NRA, the equivalent bogeyman for their enemies is Planned Parenthood, which is vulnerable if conservative regulators adopt the same tactics. Actually, anybody who takes a controversial position on matters of public policy is at risk if the targeting of opponents through regulatory agencies becomes standard.

Yes, it's been done before, but making it explicit strips regulatory authority of any legitimacy. Punishing political opponents is a less compelling argument for such power than claims—valid or otherwise—that you're enforcing good business practices. If it becomes standard practice, people are entitled to view regulators as nothing more than partisan hitmen, and treat them accordingly.

 

Hornady told him to look elsewhere for ammunition.

HornadyFBCuomo.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

They found an AK-47 rifle, two Colt AR-15 rifles, five Bushmaster XM-15 rifles and an Uzi submachine gun in Drabman’s home.

Certain guns are illegal in NY, and have been for years. Drossman sounds like a fringy guy. Another guy drew $150,000 as a bail figure. Like the case of Mr. Pelletieri, we dont know the basis of the search warrant.

 

The honest contractor's use of some of these guns was not lawful. He now deals with the constitution of the USA, as interpreted by his  circuit court.

guns in Queens.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jocal505 said:
2 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

They found an AK-47 rifle, two Colt AR-15 rifles, five Bushmaster XM-15 rifles and an Uzi submachine gun in Drabman’s home.

Cops believe Drabman was a collector.

Sounds like a fringy guy.

Yes, sounds like a collector.

And if someone that well-armed were dangerous, we'd probably already know about it by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2018 at 8:37 AM, frenchie said:

But I don't agree it should be taboo to ever mention that King at one point applied for a carry permit, and that some racist Sheriff denied him that permit, as an example of how gun control laws can be (and have been) a tool of racist oppression.  Which is all I've ever seen Tom doing, when he brings it up.  He's not implying anything about King, he's pointing out something about the Sheriff that denied King the permit: namely, that gun control gave him more power to limit King's self-defense options than he would have had, otherwise.

I don't mind the fact of MLK's permit denial was aired out. I benefited from the info, for one.

@Uncooperative Tom But if it is the only fact ever presented about MLK by an individual, and if it is presented in a stream of posts, over many years, the readers are being bombarded by information contrary to the core of MLK's teachings...and by a race-baiting, propaganda-filled dissembler from the deep south.

 

RACIALLY EDGY, CHEAP, AND REPEATED, CHERRY PICKING?

Hiding violence behind MLK is missing the core point of MLK. Using MLK as a poster boy for "shall issue" is distorted, and cheap if repeated. We can do better than that around here frenchie.

Yes, MLK was denied a gun permit. It was an inconsequential event in the grand scheme of the life and import of MLK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Yes, sounds like a collector.

And if someone that well-armed were dangerous, we'd probably already know about it by now.

Kieth Harvey was collecting illegal objects. And he has a life-changing problem now. He was led away in handcuffs, and he is now paying storage on his many weapons. The storage costs will complicate his legal bills. And his legal problems will affect his contracting business.

The article doesn't mention if Mr. Harvey has a family. If he has one, they are no fans of the weapons collection today. Mama she don't buy me no more shoes.

Harvey is a stooge for Tom, whose penchant for civil disobedience remains a quiet affair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Kieth Harvey was collecting illegal objects. And he has a life-changing problem now. He was led away in handcuffs, and he is now paying storage on his many weapons. The storage costs will cooplicate his legal bills. 

We agree that he was a person who was not harming anyone, just engaging in a private activity that was once legal where he lives and is still legal where I live. For now.

In other words, he and the other two are an illustration that gun control isn't about going after actual criminals who harm people. It's about going after gun owners who harmed no one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

We agree that he was a person who was not harming anyone, just engaging in a private activity that was once legal where he lives and is still legal where I live. For now.

In other words, he and the other two are an illustration that gun control isn't about going after actual criminals who harm people. It's about going after gun owners who harmed no one.

Try to keep up. Try to stay legal, and try to remain respectful of the constitution in a dynamic reality.

It's about going after pariahs, who have broken a legitimate statute, in a dangerous environment. The philosophy behind the "collection" became socially and symbollically unacceptable in NY, and in three other court districts, on both coasts.

 

Has the NRA harmed no one? Has Boothy harmed no one, so far?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

We agree that he was a person who was not harming anyone, just engaging in a private activity 

No, we don't agree. Even the rotten philosophy behind the guns (featuring violence conditioning, illegal harboring of arsenals, and insurrection against the government) is harmful. The rotten behavior, overall, becomes a destructive poison, coached by Tom Ray, as the healthy part of society moves forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NY raids?  That's exactly what law-abiding citizens are concerned with. What's next in 50 years - they're coming for the salt shakers because high blood pressure has been deemed a national health risk? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

The NY raids?  That's exactly what law-abiding citizens are concerned with. 

I suggest that a more progressive outlook is available to all. One direction is desirable, and one is deplorable.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Try to stay legal, and try to remain respectful of the constitution in a dynamic reality.

So your love of civil disobedience is situational, just like.. well.. all of your "beliefs" 

8 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Has the NRA harmed no one?

Is the NRA handing out guns anywhere?

Is the AAA responsible for the ~40+K motor vehicle deaths last year?

Are kitchen supply stores responsible for knife deaths?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jocal505 said:
On 6/13/2018 at 6:13 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

like when the shooting in CT created a legislative emergency in the State of NY that precluded discussing gun control before enacting it. SLIMEBALL ALERT

WTF? What are you thinking, or proposing?


I'm thinking that the murders at Sandy Hook did not actually create a legislative emergency that was so urgent it precluded normal debate before the SAFE Act could pass.

It was just a convenient bunch of murders for grabberz, but did not create any emergency at all in NY State.

I'm proposing honest debate prior to passage of laws, not abuse of emergency powers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/23/2018 at 1:48 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:


I'm thinking that the murders at Sandy Hook did not actually create a legislative emergency that was so urgent it precluded normal debate before the SAFE Act could pass.

It was just a convenient bunch of murders for grabberz, but did not create any emergency at all in NY State.

I'm proposing honest debate prior to passage of laws, not abuse of emergency powers.

A NY legislature reacted to Sandy Hook in CT, and their NY law was upheld after being challenged by your logic.

Secondly,  in your propagandizing, you are mis-representing the midnight legislation, which which I have read is common in Syracuse, for farm bills and infrastructure bills. or whatever.

Provide your best sources about this alleged blockage of legislative discussion, please, from your database.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are a poser Tom. I found this writer in MacDonald briefs.

Quote

Secret session? From Spitzer, 2015

NEW YORK STATE AND THE NEW YORK SAFE ACT: A CASE STUDY IN STRICT GUN LAWS

SPITZER 3/17/2015  10:42 AM

2014/2015] The New York SAFE Act p751

After huddling with legislative leaders, the bill was formally presented to both the state assembly and state senate on January 14.7  Both houses rapidly enacted the bill, by a vote of 104 to forty three in the Democratic-controlled assembly, and forty-three to eighteen in the Republican-controlled senate.8  Cuomo signed the bill into law the next day, on January 15.9

 

Critics from the state’s gun community lambasted the bill for its strict new provisions, but also for the rapidity of its passage, charging that the governor was abusing his powers by avoiding hearings and the opportunity for opponents outside of the legislature to make their case.10  Here, however, Cuomo was doing what New York governors often do, especially with controversial legislation.  According to a good government group, Cuomo used messages of necessity twenty-nine times in 2011 (his first year in office), only five times in 2012, and three times in 2013.11  Cuomo’s previous two predecessors, both Democrats, averaged forty-one per year, and their predecessor, Republican George Pataki, averaged over fifty-three such messages per year in his last term of office.12 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that it's a Duopoly tradition to abuse emergency powers does not make it right. What was the BIG EMERGENCY that required them to pass the seven round limit that was overturned anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2018 at 10:24 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

(to frenchie) Gllad to see someone reads and comprehends.

Let's read Tom Ray, andjust  look to the context of Tom Ray.

On 1/24/2018 at 8:37 AM, frenchie said:

But I don't agree it should be taboo to ever mention that King at one point applied for a carry permit, and that some racist Sheriff denied him that permit, as an example of how gun control laws can be (and have been) a tool of racist oppression. 

 

I'm not busting Tom for "ever mentioning" MLK's permit denial, for the mention of the incident.And I'm glad to know it happened. But Dr. King deserves better than to be constantly presented as an armed individual. There was much more happening within and around this guy. These other elements ere important, and at his core he was not about the promotion of gun violence, pr about the promotion of some particular flavor of concealed carry.

Dr. King organized non-violence as an effective lever, for the benefit of the disenfranchised, in spite of the poorly developed understandings all around him.

 

@frenchie, come on, MLK's contribution to our society was not about guns, in any way. Yet every association Tom makes about MLK involves guns.  WTF? I cry foul. I suggest that only a cheap little guy would do this...for six years. 

OTHER CONTEXT  I point to Tom's 27 undeveloped mentions of Judge Taney. I point to the context of a of quite a bit of glib racebaitng . Tom has issues about race, I would say. 

Anyway, this racebaiter type shit is plenty good enough for anarchists. Long term, we get to see if Tom improves. or if he continues to soil himself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Provide your best sources about this alleged blockage of legislative discussion

From your own post:

8 hours ago, jocal505 said:

After huddling with legislative leaders, the bill was formally presented to both the state assembly and state senate on January 14.  Both houses rapidly enacted the bill, by a vote of 104 to forty three in the Democratic-controlled assembly, and forty-three to eighteen in the Republican-controlled senate. Cuomo signed the bill into law the next day, on January 15.

They don't mean 1 year + 1 day, they mean it got passed and signed in 24 hours or less.

I'd say that counts as "blockage of legislative discussion"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

I'm not busting Tom for "ever mentioning" MLK's permit denial

Of course not, you just call him a racebaiter... every time. And it's not just MLK, it is every time it is pointed out that much of US gun control has origins in race, adding class in later.

42 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

I point to Tom's 27 undeveloped mentions of Judge Taney.

Talk about disingenuous. "undeveloped"? If you _still_ think that, there can only be 2 reasons:

1) Explanations in English are to hard for you to understand. Try your local community college for help with that

2) You will only accept explanations if they are written by one of your "allowed" PhDs or lawyers.

We all know that you will never actually read the opinion - then again, the relevant part was quoted in this forum more then once, and you still avoided it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/19/2018 at 7:29 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Cuomo Says DO SOMETHING

He doesn't say what, exactly, but we do know the first thought that pops into his head when someone asks what "something" might be.

while discussing assault weapons, he said: “Confiscation could be an option..."

Cuomo Says Reject Kavanaugh

Cuomo, a Democrat, said Saturday that Kavanaugh's past opinions show that he believes it is a constitutional right to carry "even the most dangerous assault weapons and ordinary .22's."

(OK, so I edited his quote for accuracy a bit.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Background Creeps
 

Quote

 

Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams and state Sen. Kevin Palmer’s proposal would allow authorities to review three years of social media history and one year of internet search history of any person seeking to purchase a firearm.

...

“If the police department is reviewing a gang assault, a robbery, some type of shooting, they go and do a social media profile investigation,” Adams said.

There are some logistical concerns as free speech and gun rights complaints are likely to come up. Though, Adams and Palmer say it is doable and needed.

 

Because being involved in a gun purchase is pretty similar to being involved in an assault, the same level of investigation is warranted. Or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

Background Creeps
 

Because being involved in a gun purchase is pretty similar to being involved in an assault, the same level of investigation is warranted. Or something.

GOOD FOR THEM. Boothy may have failed his FFL background checks, if his web presence had been considered. You should not be granted FFL status, since you conspire on the web to hide battle guns, and you applaud the gun hiding felons in five states, one state at a time.

Um. Deputies are collecting website info from both good guys and bad guys, while investigating offenses. They ask, and fill out such info, on a form, just after phone numbers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

Background Creeps
 

Because being involved in a gun purchase is pretty similar to being involved in an assault, the same level of investigation is warranted. Or something.

What is it with you responding to ancient guns threads started by posters who long ago stop posting and or were flicked.  It’s Creeepy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

What is it with you responding to ancient guns threads started by posters who long ago stop posting and or were flicked.  It’s Creeepy...

This one is about NY Grabberz. Others are about grabberz in other states or about specific gungrabby issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dogballs Tom said:

Background Creeps
 

Because being involved in a gun purchase is pretty similar to being involved in an assault, the same level of investigation is warranted. Or something.

It's still less troublesome than getting a driver's license and buying a car except that them liberals took the lead out of gasoline decades ago. Seriously, the market can solve problems like lead. Just give it a chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fakenews said:

But this thread is 5 years old and sadly no guns have been grabbed.

In all your searching, you didn't find this post?

Or this one?

Are your searching skills limited to the personal details of posters here or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it you think 5 years on I’m going to read the 770 odd spasmatic posts about gun grabbers in NY when no guns were grabbed you are sadly mistaken.

You should take up the mantle of the OP and start a thread about gun grabbing in another state

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites