Doc

Yeah, actually I assumed that that was 1/2 of a walkie-talkie set. Maybe there was more than one of these characters trespassing. As far as the strap over his shoulder, yes, that may be a leash, or something else. I have no idea.

WHAT???? Ban 'em!!! Ban the rifles, ban the pellets, Ban the air that's stored in the gun! What does anyone need one of those for? .... Ban 'em. Regulate the magazine to be sure that they can only hold 7 rounds. Register 'em. No, BAN them!

Good point. I wonder if any of these studies even consider the times when a personal defense weapon turns back intruders or others bent on assault, where no shot is even fired by either party or no one is injured. Oh, and by the way, the more mean the weapon looks (nasty looking ol' "assault rifles"), the more likey that that will be the result.

What on earth gave anyone the idea that he is looking for dogs, or coyote hunting, or any other made-up story. The guy is simply disrespecting the landowner by ignoring the signs and helping himself to something that is not his. You want to make up stories? ..... How about the guy just ripped down one of the landowner's signs and cut through a fence and left behind a trail of beer bottles and candy wrappers. How's that for a made-up story. Or how about the guy spotted a huge buck back in there as he was driving the roads the other night and thought he might just ignore the fact that the season is closed and slip in there and try to get him. That's another great story. But most likely the real story is that he simply feels entitled to use anybody else's property and ignore the signs that try to tell him otherwise. Probably is full of envy against the lucky S.O.B. that owns the land. Man, I hate trespassers. They're just a bunch of free-loaders that have absolutely no respect for the property of others. You can try to justify it all you want, but the kind of attitudes that run through the mind of trespassers is exactly the same as anyone else who thinks the world owes them something. Let someone start wandering around his front yard and see how tolerant he is of that little act. No it may not be the most heinous criminal act ever committed, but that doesn't mean that anyone should try to justify it. And it doesn't make the mentality and sense of entitlement that drives that kind of disrespect any easier to take.

I will say that any study that has political under-pinnings had better be scrutinized with a fine-toothed comb (several times). Seriously, one of the most powerful tools in a politians bag of tricks is a well crafted study that your average citizen can neither understand or refute. There is money to be made by researchers that fill that need. And isn't it convenient to have an opinion supposedly converted to political fact. The only way to counteract a well funded and carefully crafted study is by launching your own .... lol. It is designed to keep you on the defensive and have it appear that you have been beaten by science. It's ingenious, and works everytime because as soon as the word "study" has been used, the argument is over and everybody accepts the result as gospel .... right? Well, almost everybody.

It's getting so that you better have your State Senator and Assembly man on speed-dial. We can talk about it here on this forum, but the real people that need to hear our opinions are our representatives..... now!

If you are going to engage in letter writing to the local paper, be sure that you bounce your composition off of somebody that you know expresses themselves well before sending it in. I know that there are some who could do more harm than good. Be sure that your letter will not be judged as sounding too extreme or wacky. Every word that is publicly printed has the ability to convince and gain support, or turn-off and lose support. So use care when constructing letters to the editor. You are representing all of us, or at least that is the way the public will see it.

My thought is that if we ever had to engage in an armed revolt against an oppressive government, we had better hope that some other foriegn entity bankrolls and supplies our effort and provides us with some real weapons. Those deer rifles and shotguns in the cabinet just simply aren't going to hack it.

That's a nice looking camp. What is the deer/turkey/small game population like up there?

Reading these last bunch of replies by Early and some others has just reminded me that when you get into discussions like these people like him don't even read any replies to his messages. I know he is not stupid, and should be fully capable of grasping the simple points that are being made, so I am assuming that he doesn't even read any responses, but simply makes up in his mind what he wishes they had been. He is just another one of these people that likes to make up mythical content to any replies just to have the ability to argue. Yup! that's right another one-man conversation where he makes up the opposing argument and then comments on it. It's kind of silly isn't it? Well, I guess I've wasted about enough time on that kind of foolishness. It all serves no purpose at all?

I realize that, but we had all better get our heads straight on this and figure out exactly who it is that needs opposing. If we are all running around in circles blaming law enforcement instead of the filthy legislators who proposed and voted for this thing, we can all just sit back and watch it all disappear a piece at a time. This is not a time to be wasting emotion and effort on someone who didn't have a single thing to do with the passage of this bill. We had better recognize exactly who it is that needs to be punished for the underhanded and sneaky way that this was passed, and also for the mentality that was shown by those who voted for it. We had better make those people understand that they have awoken a sleeping giant and we had better see to it that they never hold their offices again. At the very least, we had better focus our efforts in those directions instead of flailing around dispersing our wrath on what amounts to basic innocent bystanders.

Well, there you go again. I never called anyone a "neanderthal" or even hinted at that. I love the way you guys re-write my comments just so you can argue with someone. You keep making up these mythical remarks and then arguing with them. It's kind of like a one-man conversation. My opinions on this are rather simple and basic and I have repeated them enough so that anyone who can read should not be finding a need to embellish them. As far as all your questions about cops understanding this law, I'm sorry, but I don't read minds and I don't have any idea whether they understand the law or not and for this conversation, it doesn't even relate to what I was talking about. So I don't know whether you even have a clue what you are talking about, and frankly I don't care. As far as the rest of your questions, you asked the same questions back on page two of this thread and I responded to them already. I am actually getting a bit tired of repeating myself for those that refuse to read my replies or those who for some reason can't comprehend what their reading. Oh, and by the way your notions about having the cops declare the constitutionality of the laws they enforce or decide which laws they should or should not enforce, I think that has been responded to no less than ahalf dozen times. You apparently are not grasping the concept of enforcement vs. law-making. I can't help you out there. With all of my attempts at explaining it, apparently it is still flying over your head. And so I give up. Now as to all your questions about why you are not allowed to own certain weapons, I can only say that I do not know all the reasons why you are not allowed to have the same weapons as the police. Apparently you even think you should be allowed to own an armed drone aircraft, and a rocket launcher, since you actually asked why you can't own them. I'm not sure why you are stopping there? How about a functioning tank or rocket launcher or flame thrower, or your own personal tactical nuke. If you want, go fill up a panel truck with barrels of fertilizer and fuel oil ..... lol. I mean we can get as ridiculous as you want to get, but don't be asking me why you can't own these things. I don't write the laws and I don't have the background or authority or desire to try to answer these kinds of questions for you. And also none of that crazy stuff has anything to do with my original comment about the potential negative consequences on those that make their living in law enforcement. If you are having trouble understanding any of this, re-read it as many times as needed. But this being one final stab at it (out of several), I probably won't be wasting anymore time repeating it all again.

Definitely could be a contributer. I didn't think of that. It would be great if someone took a crack at a study just to see if there isn't some feature that should be emphasized. We're doing darned good, but there always is room for improvement.

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.