Doc

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!

Well, at least your deer know where they are supposed to be hanging out. I have 11 deer of all sizes chonking on grass in my front lawn. They have been showing up at all times of day and night for the last few weeks. If the house windows were a little lower, they could stand outside watching TV with me.

Meanwhile, we are all hiding out in the woods, 72' in the air in our treestands, with our jillion dollar scent-lock super camo suits all paranoid about wind direction and all doused up with stinky ol' doe pee, playing a tune on our favorite grunt tube and never get to see even one of these guys.....lol.

Can you imagine Cuomo standing on one of the NY city back streets with his collar pulled up and his hat pulled down, buying guns for his bodyguards out of the back of a panel truck. That would make a great editorial page newspaper cartoon .... lol.

I think the thing that bothers me most is that some guys will search the internet until they find some printed matter that seems to support their position. And then they come on here waving their arms in the air proclaiming they have found "proof" that their position is valid. I'm simply pointing out that such a tactic is not necessarily valid nor credible nor is there anything showing that the results are indeed worth the paper they are written on. But yet we are supposed to say, "Well that's it. If you found it on the net it must be true". We all know that if it is found on the net it has to be true .... right? I'm sorry if I don't simply buy everything that is peddled on the net. I'm just a bit more skeptical than that, especially when it comes to politically sensitive topics.

I'm sure ....lol. Look I'm not dismissing any study. I only caution you and others about taking these, or any study as gospel. There are people out there that have vested interests in making the results match the pre-determined theory. Also, when it comes to highly emotional, incendiary political topics, there are plenty of people with deep pockets that are interested in influencing or financing studies that are designed to back their particular political needs. Anyone who doesn't acknowledge that is really quite naive. So when someone trots out a study that supposedly is intended to end all discussion, I simply say, hold on a minute, I can find any article on the internet to uphold my particular viewpoint on any subject. That does not mean that they are all on the up-and-up. This one does have some suspicious research constructions and inclusions.

Well I think religion is a lot more personal than politics. So the only reason that I can see for attacking someones religion is some kind of desire to launch a personal attack. Why would anyone want to do that as an out-of-the-blue random act of maliciousness. It doesn't make any sense to me. And also, what others believe in when it comes to religion has absolutely no effect on me (with the possible exception of extreme Islamic variations which really are more political than religious). Political stupidity on the other hand, does have a direct effect on me and my way of life. With this latest gun law fiasco as an example.

It's not just the heat ....... How about the spikey-fanged, slithering things. You know those creepy critters that don't even have the decency to get up and walk at you. I don't want anything to do with those. I don't even like the non-lethal ones that we have around here. Now, if somebody invents a pair of snake-bite boots that zip up over the top of your head, maybe I would consider walking around in the tall grass down there, enjoying hunting all those pigs and stuff.

I have no axe to grind with anyone's opinion on religion. I only wonder what it is that makes some feel threatened by it or inclined to attack it. I always have to ask why some feel required to attack the beliefs of others. What is the kick they get out of it? I'll probably never figure that out.

Actually in answer to the topic title, they have the right to try. It is up to the courts and voters to straighten them out.

So is the argument that compounds, recurves and longbows are inadequate deer hunting weapons and should be removed from the list of deer harvesting weapons because some bowhunters do not practice adequately? Let's take this line of argument to it's final conclusion which would be bow hunting season should be that eliminated in favor of the more efficient gun season. I have tried to stay out of this argument because it is basically rehashing the same points over and over, but this statement really looks like a frontal attack on bowhunting. If we want to favor only those weapons that are easy to use and require little or no practice, then basically that is a recommendation to eliminate all bows in favor of guns and crossbows. Actually, I have heard that argument put forth by many gun hunters, and left unchallenged is a notion that could eventually get some traction.

Virgil- I don't know whether it escaped your notice or not, but 4 of the 5 resources that you linked were simply partnering onto the studies done by this Al Kellermann. So in your attempt to show a huge number of studies done by 5 different researchers, you failed to point out that every one of these so-called studies were done by the same lead researcher. Yes I will say that someone who seems to have specialized in anti-gun studies certainly does raise credibility concerns. This guy apparently makes his living from trying to arrive at a predetermined bias. I will say that his studies may be on the up and up, but I wouldn't base my entire opinion based on one guy who appears to have an axe to grind. Ever hear the phrase, "figures don't lie, but liars figure"? I am not saying that this is the case here, but the anti-gun lobby has deep pockets and certainly can afford the best anti-gun studies that money can buy. So, I am not about to recommend that people dispose of their weapons in their homes based on these studies. Also, any study that includes suicide and accidents, fails to account for the fact that those intent on committing suicide do not require a gun to do so, and there is no evidence given that the gun in the home was the cause of the suicide or that it wouldn't have happened by other means if the gun was not present. I see the inclusions of suicides just an irrelevant attempt at inflating the body count to match the desired outcome. And if we are going to add in accidents, we also have to admit that accidents by firearms are insignificant in number compared with other forms of accidents. Maybe what the author has successfully proven is that the home can be a dangerous place....lol. I think I could have guessed that without this guy Kellermann sucking up all that research money. Seriously, if the purpose of your linking these supposed stats was to show that people should pitch their home defense weapons, I'm afraid you failed.