Blaming the gun, within 24 hours, as usual

[bofh]

First, I don't live in NYC. Second, NYC is less than 500 sq miles, NYS is 55,000 sq miles. So there is less than one-tenth of one percent of NYS that is a problem.

Second, the issue is possession of a handgun for self defense. What good is a handgun if you have to leave it in your car while you go about your business? I'd rather have 7 rounds at my side than 30 in the car. What about you?

Third, do you really think the reason no one in that SC church was able to defend themselves because they couldn't have a bayonet on their handgun?

It amazes me how many people love to complain about the gun laws of a state they don't live in when their own state has much more restrictive gun laws and treats their gun owners like children. Delusional.

As I already explained to you, I am not even able to possess a handgun in the entire state of NY as a visitor, irrespective of its magazine capacity. I carry a Glock 19 in the free states, with a standard capacity of 15 rounds and with two backup magazines that have an extended capacity of 17 rounds. That's 50 rounds on my hip. You would need 6 backup magazines to match that. That's 2 reloads vs. 6 reloads in a gun fight. I doubt that you carry 6 backup magazines.

You got the second part right. You are delusional.

 

[nogods]

As I already explained to you, I am not even able to possess a handgun in the entire state of NY as a visitor, irrespective of its magazine capacity.
You got the second part right. You are delusional.

Then stay in SC where you can't carry in a long list of places. Or move to NYS where you can carry in all the places you can't carry in SC. Your inability to carry in a restaurant that serves beer, or any medical office, or any government office or any church is a result of your choice to live in SC. If you lived in NYS you wouldn't have those restrictions (unless of course you visited SC).

Now tell me - if the SCOTUS holds that each state must recognize each other state's CC permits,while in NYS would you be prohibited from carrying in churches, restaurants that serve alcohol, government offices, and medical offices because your home state doesn't trust you to carry in those places while in your home state, and would I be able to carry in those places when I visit SC because my home state does trust me to carry in those places?

Or if we meet for a beer in a SC tavern, would we both have to leave our firearms in the cars?

 

[S&W645]

First, I don't live in NYC. Second, NYC is less than 500 sq miles, NYS is 55,000 sq miles. So there is less than one-tenth of one percent of NYS that is a problem.

Second, the issue is possession of a handgun for self defense. What good is a handgun if you have to leave it in your car while you go about your business? I'd rather have 7 rounds at my side than 30 in the car. What about you?

Third, do you really think the reason no one in that SC church was able to defend themselves because they couldn't have a bayonet on their handgun?

It amazes me how many people love to complain about the gun laws of a state they don't live in when their own state has much more restrictive gun laws and treats their gun owners like children. Delusional.

So there are a few places where I can't carry but you can't carry in your state's largest city with your state's permit. Seems like you lose and I win. Even less area that I can't carry and in Florida, places with bars depend on how they are setup. Churches are not a problem and most gov't locations have guards and/or metal detectors.

 

[nogods]

most gov't locations have guards and/or metal detectors.

There are guards and/or metal detectors in your DMV offices, libraries, dog pounds, municipal swimming pools, and parks? How about all the medical offices and hospitals?

And what's with the no carry in any bar? Do they assume cc permit holders are too irresponsible to be trusted not to get drunk while carrying?

Do they let people drive to bars on the assumption that they won't get too drunk to drive home, or is driving to a bar prohibited too? What's the logic behind that?

Do they assume no one will ever get drunk in a bar, then go out to their car to retrieve their firearm and shoot up place.

Yep, if you prohibit firearms from bars, and medical offices, and churches, and local government offices, then no one will ever have a firearm in those places. Isn't that the classic anti-gun faulty reasoning?

 

[DavidWhite]

Link Removed

 

[NavyLCDR]

Anybody find this little tidbit interesting:
Suspected South Carolina church gunman reportedly tried to kill himself during the attack - Business Insider

Roof CONFESSES S to killing 9 people in a cold blooded hate crime.. and gets bail!

His bail has been set at $1 million.

Meanwhile, Michael Slager - same city, kills 1 person, not sure of motivation....

Link Removed

Denied bail.

Now really, no matter how much we think that cops need to be held accountable for their crimes (when proven guilty).....COME ON! Letting a self CONFESSED killer of 9 people with his motive stated by him out on bail?!?!?!!!!!

 

[BluesStringer]

Anybody find this little tidbit interesting:
Suspected South Carolina church gunman reportedly tried to kill himself during the attack - Business Insider

Roof CONFESSES S to killing 9 people in a cold blooded hate crime.. and gets bail!



Meanwhile, Michael Slager - same city, kills 1 person, not sure of motivation....

Link Removed

Denied bail.

Now really, no matter how much we think that cops need to be held accountable for their crimes (when proven guilty).....COME ON! Letting a self CONFESSED killer of 9 people with his motive stated by him out on bail?!?!?!!!!!

I heard a legal analyst (forget which station was on) say shortly after Roof's return to SC that the $1 million bail was for using a gun during the commission of a felony charge, and would not, and could not, get him out of jail for the murder charges. In other words, the judge who set bail was obligated to set it for only the charge specified in the bail documents in order to comply with Roof's constitutional rights. The judge has the authority to deny bail on the murder charges though, and that's what he did. Bail was a technicality only, but otherwise, meaningless. I found this, and this, among others, all of which appear to confirm that there was no bond set on the murder charges.

Blues

 

[NavyLCDR]

Well, that sorta makes a little bit more sense. Thanks for the additional info!

 

[NavyLCDR]

Looks like two of my letters got printed.....
Self defense should be socially acceptable | Letters - Whidbey News-Times

http://www.goskagit.com/opinion/let...cle_81a76306-7047-5149-acc5-22d415d7fa55.html

 

[BigSlick]

Looks like two of my letters got printed.....
Self defense should be socially acceptable | Letters - Whidbey News-Times

Letter: Laws won?t stop evil | Opinion | goskagit.com

CONGRATS Navy LCDR!!!!

 

[kwc]

Good job, NavyLCDR.

 

[mappow]

I heard a legal analyst (forget which station was on) say shortly after Roof's return to SC that the $1 million bail was for using a gun during the commission of a felony charge, and would not, and could not, get him out of jail for the murder charges. In other words, the judge who set bail was obligated to set it for only the charge specified in the bail documents in order to comply with Roof's constitutional rights. The judge has the authority to deny bail on the murder charges though, and that's what he did. Bail was a technicality only, but otherwise, meaningless. I found this, and this, among others, all of which appear to confirm that there was no bond set on the murder charges.

Blues

The initial hearing in front of the Magistrate was for only the gun charge. He does not have the authority to hold a bond hearing on capitol murder. That must be done by a Circuit Judge.

 

[gfrlaser]

Same rules in Ohio. Let the parishioner beware.

A permit issued pursuant to this section does not authorize a permit holder to carry a concealable weapon into a:
church or other established religious sanctuary unless express permission is given by the appropriate church official or governing body;

 

[S&W645]

There are guards and/or metal detectors in your DMV offices, libraries, dog pounds, municipal swimming pools, and parks? How about all the medical offices and hospitals?

And what's with the no carry in any bar? Do they assume cc permit holders are too irresponsible to be trusted not to get drunk while carrying?

Do they let people drive to bars on the assumption that they won't get too drunk to drive home, or is driving to a bar prohibited too? What's the logic behind that?

Do they assume no one will ever get drunk in a bar, then go out to their car to retrieve their firearm and shoot up place.

Yep, if you prohibit firearms from bars, and medical offices, and churches, and local government offices, then no one will ever have a firearm in those places. Isn't that the classic anti-gun faulty reasoning?

Most places do have guards if gov't operated and our DMV locally does. Dog pound is run by sworn police officers. Animal control officers have to pass the same requirements as a street cop.

Our hospitals do even if private and you are only banned from carry if they treat mental cases, unless against hospital policy. You are banned from hospitals that operate under or licensed by the Office of Mental Health of the Department of Mental Hygiene. So how is that any different? Doctor's offices are the same and up to the doctors.

Now, can you carry in a jail or courthouse courtroom? We can with the judge's permission. Last time I had jury duty we had a bailiff escort to our vehicles including delivery to transportation. Entry to the courthouses is thru metal detectors with armed officers. Federal buildings are with proof of citizenship or by letter authorizing entry. Metal detectors for all but lawyers on court business and their clients. Bypass line as they are considered officers of the courts.

Go to Chili's, or Applebee's and sit in a booth and you can have whatever and in some sports bars. I eat in one quite often and the cops would not be able to do anything about it. Owners also know we are armed.

Unlike some states where Lowes or HD ban carry, none of the stores here have signs.

Now again, where can you carry legally in NYC with a NY permit? 305 square miles of no carry for you. Unless you are one of the privileged few in NY with an NYC permit.
Restricted to home only with a state CCW permit? Not here but NY can. Antiques only permit, not here. Business only permit, not here. So tell me again how great your state is with mag restriction and permits to even have pistols required. Glad you like those chains but they sure don't make your state better than here. My permit is for all cities here and includes all legal CC weapons.

Your state even makes it a felony just to own more than 5 firearms without a permit. What kind of stupidity does it take to decide that 4 is unlikely to be a problem but 5 is a felony?

A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second
degree when:

(2)such person possesses five or more firearms; or
(3)such person possesses any loaded firearm. Such possession shall not, except as provided in subdivision one or seven of section 265.02 of
this article, constitute a violation of this subdivision if such possession takes place in such person's home or place of business.
Criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree is a class C felony.

You own ammo and a gun that is capable of firing it, it is defined as loaded firearm.

15. "Loaded firearm" means any firearm loaded with ammunition or any
firearm which is possessed by one who, at the same time, possesses a
quantity of ammunition which may be used to discharge such firearm.

Again, stupid definition that can get someone in trouble.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Looks like I got a rebuttal to one letter to the editor:
Letter: It?s a gun problem | Opinion | goskagit.com

My response to their letter:
History has suggested, both in the US and in the UK, that when civilian firearms ownership and possession is restricted, overall violent crime rates rise. When civilian firearms ownership and possession is allowed, overall violent crime rates fall. It may not be direct cause and effect and might be just a coincidence, but there is no evidence that increasing gun control reduces crime in reality. What gun control is certain to do is limit the victim's ability to defend themselves from criminal attacks. When a gun control law is passed, it is the law abiding citizen who will comply with it first - not the criminal.

In the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy, Obama was finally able to lift the ban Congress had enacted on funding gun violence research and the CDC was given $10 Million for a study. The results of that study, requested and funded by the Obama administration, show that the gun control measures that liberals are so fond of do not work. The CDC study showed instead that personal defense against criminal attacks does work. OOPS. That's why you didn't see the Obama administration proudly announcing the results of what they thought would be their pride and joy study. The study was called "Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-related Violence", published by the National Research Council in 2013.

 

[S&W645]

Typical of the left, first thing to attack is the NRA and gun owners.

 

[nogods]

Looks like I got a rebuttal to one letter to the editor:
Letter: It?s a gun problem | Opinion | goskagit.com

My response to their letter:
History has suggested, both in the US and in the UK, that when civilian firearms ownership and possession is restricted, overall violent crime rates rise. When civilian firearms ownership and possession is allowed, overall violent crime rates fall. It may not be direct cause and effect and might be just a coincidence, but there is no evidence that increasing gun control reduces crime in reality. What gun control is certain to do is limit the victim's ability to defend themselves from criminal attacks. When a gun control law is passed, it is the law abiding citizen who will comply with it first - not the criminal.

In the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy, Obama was finally able to lift the ban Congress had enacted on funding gun violence research and the CDC was given $10 Million for a study. The results of that study, requested and funded by the Obama administration, show that the gun control measures that liberals are so fond of do not work. The CDC study showed instead that personal defense against criminal attacks does work. OOPS. That's why you didn't see the Obama administration proudly announcing the results of what they thought would be their pride and joy study. The study was called "Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-related Violence", published by the National Research Council in 2013.

There wasn't any need to for you to respond to that reply to your original letter to the editor. His or her reply was as inane as some of the pro-2A arguments we sometimes see, and needs no reply because the great majority of people will recognize it as a nothing but emotional BS. In fact, his or her response to your original letter probably does more good for pro-2A arguments because it exposes the irrational knee jerk reactions of the anti-gun people. Most people who read your letter then read his or her reply are going to view you as the logical reasonable person in that debate.

 

[BluesStringer]

There wasn't any need to for you to respond to that reply to your original letter to the editor. His or her reply was as inane as some of the pro-2A arguments we sometimes see, and needs no reply because the great majority of people will recognize it as a nothing but emotional BS. In fact, his or her response to your original letter probably does more good for pro-2A arguments because it exposes the irrational knee jerk reactions of the anti-gun people. Most people who read your letter then read his or her reply are going to view you as the logical reasonable person in that debate.

There was never a "need" for Navy to write in the first place, there was only a desire to give the logical, concise, legal and Constitution-based counter to the predictable hysterical calls for gun control by your ideological contemporaries, leftists, and by the Boy King who spewed lies about things like this never happening other than in America.

The words "in fact" and "probably" are mutually-exclusive when used to express the same thought.

Anyone reading your critique of Navy's second letter would likely think you as ignorant of the subjects of which you speak as you imagine Navy being ignorant of when, or when not to, write a freakin' letter of his own volition, irrespective of your lacking-in-facts opinion of what he "probably" "needed" to do or not do.

Blues

 

[NavyLCDR]

And some more B.S. rooted out by my initial letter:
Letter: Dreaming of doing better | Opinion | goskagit.com

Re: “Laws won’t stop evil” and “Solar dreamers ignore facts” (Letters, June 20).

So, your idea to prevent the wanton murder of nine black people in a Charleston, South Carolina, church is to give the victims all guns so that they can kill their assailant. In essence, you want them to become like him.

Oh, that is just too special for words. Laws were never meant to stop evil. We stop evil by rooting it out at the source. As Germany outlawed Nazism and banished the swastika and flag, we can outlaw and destroy white supremacists and their hateful rhetoric. I’m not going after their stupid flag. I say we go after them.

My response,
" 'give the victims all guns so that they can kill their assailant. In essence, you want them to become like him.'

No. What I said was stop trying to prevent the victims from being able to arm themselves so that they could have the means available to defend themselves against a criminal who is actively shooting at them if they chose to do so. According to your theory of 'killing the assailant and becoming like him' then we should also take guns away from police officers, right? Would you vote for that? Contrary to the fantasy created by movies and television, we who carry firearms for self-defense do not do so with the purpose of killing anyone - we carry a firearm to be able to protect ourselves if a criminal should choose to violently attack us with the likelihood of doing us serious injury or killing us.

'I’m not going after their stupid flag. I say we go after them.' So, exactly how do you propose that 'we go after them?' I look forward to hearing a specific plan of action...but I'm not holding my breath."

 

[S&W645]

And some more B.S. rooted out by my initial letter:
Letter: Dreaming of doing better | Opinion | goskagit.com



My response,
" 'give the victims all guns so that they can kill their assailant. In essence, you want them to become like him.'

No. What I said was stop trying to prevent the victims from being able to arm themselves so that they could have the means available to defend themselves against a criminal who is actively shooting at them if they chose to do so. According to your theory of 'killing the assailant and becoming like him' then we should also take guns away from police officers, right? Would you vote for that? Contrary to the fantasy created by movies and television, we who carry firearms for self-defense do not do so with the purpose of killing anyone - we carry a firearm to be able to protect ourselves if a criminal should choose to violently attack us with the likelihood of doing us serious injury or killing us.

'I’m not going after their stupid flag. I say we go after them.' So, exactly how do you propose that 'we go after them?' I look forward to hearing a specific plan of action...but I'm not holding my breath."

I wonder whom they would pick to do the rooting, SPLC maybe? Well if they were the ones, then they might as well start with themselves. Just about any time you see a group or person that wants to get rid of something, like the SPLC, they have an agenda themselves that is just as dangerous. Destroy the KKK, then destroy the NBPP also. And also take out the NAACP when you go after Aryan Nation. Take out all of the race based laws that try to give blacks a hand up while really being nothing more than trying to cut down others. Might as well destroy the Democratic Party too as no matter what they think, they oppress people both black and white. Where would it end? They'd have to get rid of our current president for sure. Maybe that is where they should start.