Doc

I would actually like to see school security become a trained career. I'm talking about an actual schooling with intense firearms handling, martial arts and examples of scenarios and recommended reactions, and rules of policy. I do not mean a couple weeks of seminars. It would be good to actually develop a curriculum with testing and certification when completed. Upon completion there would be an intense background check, and an offer of jobs that actually allowed these graduates to earn a decent income. Such a trained professional security could be useful in schools and any other place that needed quality trained people in that field.

Pretty darn safe activity , isn't it? ....... and getting better every decade. It would be nice to be able to analyze why, but I don't see anyway to pull that out of the numbers. And then, along comes a year like 2010 where the number of incidents popped back up to 40 from 26, and then dropped back down the following year ..... What's that all about? Anyway, this declining number of incidents every decade ..... Is that because of safety training? Is it because of fewer actual man-hours of hunting? Is it because of increased use of blaze orange? I guess one can wonder and wonder and probably never figure it out.....lol.

Lol .... I got so far out on a tangent with my last reply, that I forgot to respond to the initial topic. But anyway, doesn't the first "F" in the FFL mean Federal. How tough would it be to siphon off each hit into a federal background database into a separate "sort" for some other agency's use? And as far as what is contained in that store clerk's database query, all I know is that the guy at the counter was typing for a long time and was putting a whole lot more than just my name and address in there while he was accessing it. Now, I have never used the system so I can't speak with any kind of authority, but it sure did seem to me that while he was logged into their database he sure was inputting an awful lot of info.

Not to get too far away from the original topic, but one of the problems with relying on private arms to turn back tyranny is the realities of the effectiveness of the weapons that we are counting on. I understand that aspect of the 2nd Amendment and have used the same argument myself, but often I wonder about the realities of that thought. Deer rifles and shotguns against armed drones and tactical nukes? .... Really?? Every year that goes by brings on new unimaginable and unbelievable technology in the hands of the government. This isn't 1776 when the general population had exactly the same weapons as the government. I watched some of that footage that was being aired during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and simply cannot imagine going up against that kind of ridiculous overwhelming firepower with my new .270 or my 12 guage. You know, I think we have to work on that argument a bit .... lol.

What I would rather see these companies do is to throw some money into the pot for the current legal challenge to this law. That would be something useful and really effective that would result in real lasting change. It would also be something that is in their financial interest. In fact it probably would be in their interests and ours to initiate some court challenges of their own against this law. That would also be an action aimed at the right people for a change. I would also like to see them throw some cash at the lobbying efforts against Obama's federal anti-gun activities (an issue that seems to be fading into the background here).

On the other hand, you might want to re-think publicly advertising an intent to commit a felony on an internet forum ..... lol.

I don't know about anyone else, but the last two guns that I bought, were sold only after they ran a background check on me. I'm sure that background check along with identifications of the gun I was purchasing are sitting somewhere in a nice handy database. If that database is not in Albany already, I'm sure they have access to it. That sounds like those firearms are as good as registered already.

Actually what you are saying about the state police may be true, except that even Cuomo cannot compel companies to supply weapons regardless of how loud the state police may complain about weapons shortages. Also bear in mind that a lot of the more dangerous law enforcement is done in inner cities by municiple police forces from city governments that simply have to live with whatever constraints that are shoved at them. So anyone hoping that gun and ammo manufacturers boycotting sales to NYS is going to force the repeal of this gun law, I believe are barking up the wrong tree. The courts are the only way to repeal that law. Also, cops lives being turned into any kind of "collateral damage" for any reason is not acceptable to me.

A cops job and duty is not to enforce his opinions. I'm sure you can imagine where that would lead if they all did that. There are others that properly make opinions on that sort of thing. They are called the courts. Your comment here does not have anything to with police actions or inactions. Your beef is with the politicians that proposed and voted in favor of this law. Don't be taking out your frustration on random innocent agencies. Stay focused on those that have caused the problem. And keep that focus until the next election.

I agree with most of that, however, if the new policy of these gun companies does not put the hurt on police agencies, then most likely the whole thing is just an empty gesture that will simply put a smile on Cuomo's face. If it does put a hurt on the ability of police to safely do their job, then I'm against it. It's good for these guys to take a firm position on this new gun law as long as it doesn't wind up with any unintended consequences.

Maybe so. I sure am not any expert on the laws surrounding the F.O.I.L. stuff or any other kind of legal junk. It just seems a bit wacked-out to create all this extra paper-work. But I'll bet that isn't the first time that's been the case .... lol.

This one ranks right up there with the last reply in terms of fraudulently representing anything about what I have said. I would like you to explain what I have said that makes you come up with a crack-pot statement like that. This is just some ignorant dishonest outburst that has absolutely nothing to do with anything that I have said and you damned well know it. Listen, if you guys cannot argue against the points that I am making, at least have the integrety to not make things up.

Boy, do I hate it when people try to re-write my posts to suit their argument. There is no one here saying that anyone's life is more important than any one else's. There is no one here that is saying that private citizens should be denied anything that anyone else is getting. No one here is saying that a badge makes anybody into royalty. So that takes care of 90 % of your reply. I welcome you to go back through any of my posts and find any of those statements ..... you will not, so stop fraudulently restating my posts. I say things in a specific way and those statements do not need any bogus, incorrect paraphrasing. What I am saying, and have repeated no less than 4 times is that it is not an officer's duty (or even ability) to establish the constitutionality of the laws he is enforcing. For the jillionth time, that is the pervue of the court system ...... Now, did you understand that this time? I think that is clear enough, but if not, read it again. I am also saying that firearms are the police officer's tools that are required for him to do his job. They are what keeps him alive. I believe the nature of his job and the fact that he is daily put in a position that has a higher probability of going dangerously bad than any of us civilians means that he needs an uninterrupted source of the tools of his work. I am talking about the requirements for a police officer to stay alive. He needs that firepower .... let me repeat that .... needs that firepower. Depriving him of ready access to that fire power is akin to signing his death warrant and offering up a high probability that the death warrant will be served. If that is ok with you, then we have a serious irreconcilable difference of opinion. Now before you launch off into another direction that is totally different from what I just said, let me remind you that I am talking about what a cop requires not what should or shouldn't be allowed for civilian use. Those are two different subjects. Do you follow that? I am trying to get across the reasons why cops need to have an uninterrupted supply of the tool that keeps him alive. As far as all the other crapola that has been thrown at my original comment. It is all irrelevant. It is all trying to imply things that I never said. My comment regarded an attempt to deprive the free flow of weapons to those people that enforce our laws and count on those laws daily in the execution of their job. I realize what the message is from those companies, but worry about the unintended consequences (which apparently no one else does). Relative to your belief that you should have rocket-launchers in your closet, and armed drones, that is just too ridiculous to answer, and ranks right up there with the belief that tactical nukes should be a part of the average household arsenal. I can't even consider that to be a serious comment.

Actually, I'm confused about the whole concept behind this "Opt-out" stuff. It seems to me that if they have decided that the information doesn't really have to be released to the public then why does witholding the info have to be done one person at a time. For crying out loud, just make the whole data base out of bounds for the F.O.I.L. stuff. Now somebody has to be hired to manually input all these opt-outs into the data base. What a waste. Just exclude the whole database from F.O.I.L. activity.

Wow! What a strange twist this thread has taken ..... lol. I'll tell you something Early. The day that you power your way into a drug house full of guys armed with the best black-market weapons that drug-money can buy, then maybe you might deserve to be listened to regarding what cops need to do their job. If you want weapons of equal strength, that certainly has some merit. But you don't balance the scale by taking implements of safety away from those that we charge with enforcing the law. When you do that, that goes beyond just simple "bashing of police". This is where you get into wanting to endanger the lives of police. By the way, are you having a problem with the military being armed with the most advanced weaponry too because it certainly does make the government "armed to the teeth". Maybe we need an armed drone in every family garage .... a rocket launcher in every bedroom closet? Come on, stay with us. Don't be slipping out of the world of reality. This militia type talk is starting to scare even pro-gun people into wondering what kind of people we are. Let's not start sounding like Tim McVeigh is our hero.

I'll probably never figure it out why some people think that every unjust law becomes the responsibility of the police to change. I'm not sure what is so difficult to understand that cops don't make or change laws. That's not their job. These people had absolutely nothing to do with the passage of this law. Is that really a tough concept to understand. You got a problem with the cops having the latest, most up-to-date weapons, go try to take on their job with anything less. You want them to ignore the law in protest and basically give up their livelihood? How many of you are willing to do the same. Why do you demand sacrifices of police that you would never be willing to make? I'll tell you, sometimes I have no idea what gets into some people's heads.

Yup, I was wondering when it would start getting around to that sort of comment. You should have started out with the personal attack to start with and we could have saved a lot of time .... lol.

The point about people having adequate individual home protection is not even a point that anyone is disputing, so I guess you are simply arguing with yourself. Also, you keep insinuating that my comments about the cop bashing were aimed at you. That to the point where you told me, "F-YOU". ..... Nice classy touch by the way. And even though I was very clear in my original comment as well as a couple of times following as to which posts I was talking about, you kept coming back arguing the point. That is going way out of your way to try to make it all about you, even when it has been made clear that it is not. Frankly I am getting tired of it. If you want to start a fight, try starting it with somebody that actually disagrees with you.

I can't really figure out why you seem to be determined to be identified with my comments about cop bashing posts. Not everything is about you. I think I have been quite clear as to what replies my comments were aimed at, and yet you seem to be bent on inserting yourself into something that clearly had nothing to do with your post or mine. I will say that if you can't take the time to correctly read what I am saying, I really am getting tired of repeating myself, and probably won't do it again. As far as relative threats and danger between cops and myself, I will say that it is not part of my daily occupation and activities to go out to locate and apprehend drug dealers, murderers, rapists and gang bangers, so if the cops need to be a bit better armed than I am, I suppose I have no problem with that. I have no idea why you chose to fly off on that particular tangent as it has absolutely nothing to do with anything that I said. But just to keep you on point, I will once again re-state that if someone is threatening their supply of weapons to do their job, I don't think that's a good thing. And if this action does not threaten the supply of weapons to law enforcement personel, then it is indeed a meaningless empty gesture. So that's why I said at the beginning that I have mixed feelings about all this. I do not want to see the supply of weapons to law enforcement personel curtailed, but I do like the statement that these companies are trying to make about this new gun law to the individuals who proposed and passed the law. That's as clear as I can make it.

I am constantly amazed at all the different ways that these guys come up with just to mess with that pesky ol' 2nd Amendment.

I'm including anyone who thinks it's a good idea to send law enforcement personel out to do their jobs without the latest weapons because they can't buy any. I don't know whether you are reading any of the posts that are showing up on here, but I am amazed that anyone would suggest that it is alright to punish cops by with-holding the means to defend themselves. Especially since they have absolutely nothing to do with the passage of the law that people are protesting. Also, it may not have occurred to you, but I am the only one here sticking up for the cops. I suggest that you go back and read my comment a little more carefully and slowly.

I'm leaving the police out of this argument. It is not their job to determine constitutionality. They aren't educated in constitutional law, and it is not their place to get involved in law-making. That sort of thing is decided by the courts. Also, there is no need to expect them to sacrifice more than any of us are willing to do. Is there anybody here that is giving up their livlihood as a protest against this law? That's what you are asking the cops to do.

Well, you guys can engage in your little "I hate the cops" campaign, but frankly I know a few cops and they are decent guys with families who everyday take on challenges that can turn to life threatening situations at any time. I personally have no interest in them getting gunned down because they were outgunned as a result of some mis-directed protest. These guys didn't pass that law, and in most cases aren't even in favor of it. No cop has ever done me wrong, and absolutely none of them have ever done anything to me that would make me want to see them not return home to their families because they couldn't get adequate firearms.

Wow what a set of mixed feelings. On one hand, it sure is great to see an action aimed at state government that seems to be right on point. But as these different companies keep adding themselves to the list of ones that will refuse to service NYS government agencies, I have to wonder if it ever could get to the point where our law enforcement agencies will have their safety jeopardized. Man, I don't want that. My beef is with Cuomo and his merry band of gun banning politicians that signed that mess into law. I don't have any quarrel with the guys and gals that go out everyday and put their lives on the line for our safety. It seems like this law is being met with a scatter-gun when maybe it needs a little finer coverage and a little more careful aim.

Ha - ha ..... probably not the kind of thing that I could ever get use to. Even those harmless little ones that we've got around up here will make me jump when they take off without me expecting it. Damned sneaky things. I think if we had ones that could kill you or otherwise wreck you, I probably wouldn't go outside very much. I just don't like 'em!