New York SAFE ACT Is a Cluster-You-Know-What

 Thousands of opt out of FOIA forms for New York gun owners (courtesy usatoday.com)

There are lots of good reasons why the United States Constitution directs that Americans’ right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Here’s another one: the government sucks at governing. Even “common sense” gun laws designed with the best of intentions delay or deny the right to keep and bear arms when administered by the bureaucratic bloat that is our public service sector. To wit: a provision of New York’s ironically-named SAFE Act “allows” pistol permit holders to opt out of Freedom of Information Act requests for personal information. To do so, gun owners have to submit a form by May 15 listing their reason for seeking privacy. You can guess what happens next. If not, read this from usatoday.com and weep . . .

County clerks say the forms’ popularity has office staff working overtime and clerks pulling workers from different divisions to help organize the information. Some clerks said they have started sending the forms to county judges for approval to stay ahead of the process.

“Right now we are absolutely overwhelmed, we have lines out the door and our staff are stressed to the max,” Monroe County Clerk Cheryl Dinolfo said. “We are treading water and doing what needs to be done to get through the day.” . . .

Dinolfo said about 1,000 of the county’s forms came from new pistol-permit applicants because the law also has spurred a surge in people buying guns. Monroe County, home to the state’s third largest city in Rochester, has about 45,000 pistol-permit holders.

As my old high school friend used to say, my hearts pumps piss for them. They are both the product and the perpetrators of laws that are fundamentally flawed. Never mind the “opt out” info bit of New York’s permitting process, there shouldn’t be a permitting process in the first place.

This is what happens when a free people surrender their freedom to a government that’s supposed to protect it: they lose their rights by degrees. And the more hurdles government places on people attempting to exercise their rights, the more likely they are to fail to clear them. Or have someone in authority block their progress.

In most counties, county judges approve or deny the opt-out requests. Then the forms are sent back to clerk’s offices where pistol permit holders’ status is updated and logged as private.

The opt-out form allows a number of reasons a gun owner can seek to have information kept private. Among them: being a law-enforcement official or a victim of domestic violence, having a safety fear after grand jury service, or being concerned about harassment . . .

Not all county judges are giving automatic approvals. Rockland County Clerk Paul Piperato said his county judge sent back forms that lacked information or failed to provide a legitimate concern for sealing the records. Piperato plans to return the forms to residents so they can resubmit them . . .

“The law is very unclear and never told those who do the work how this process should be completed,” Cortland County Clerk Elizabeth Larkin said. “County by county they are trying to figure out how to comply with the law with no resources and no written regulations.”

This is just a warm-up folks. As of April 15th, 2013, Empire State owners of [newly defined] assault rifles have one year to transfer their weapon to an out-of-state owner or register their rifles with the State Police. Violators face jail time, fines and confiscation.

County clerks said they are bracing next for registration of assault weapons, set to begin April 15 when state police make forms available online.

“It is an unfunded mandate, and it was dumped on us,” Larkin said. “It should have never happened on the state level with no thought of the consequences to local county offices.”

If you think about it, it would be worse if the government administered this gun registration scheme efficiently. But mark my words: mistakes will be made—in administration and enforcement—-and bloodshed will result. And people will learn, again, still, the government is not your friend.

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

70 Responses to New York SAFE ACT Is a Cluster-You-Know-What

  1. avatarpk in AZ says:

    Ya think?

    • avatarAnonymous says:

      I like how they call it “Freedom of Information Act” and “Patriot Act,” etc. Who’s freedom and patriotism are we talking about here? The people’s? or the government’s?

  2. avatarAccur81 says:

    Make no mistake, there are politicians all over the US who would love to impose this bullsh!t all over the nation. Feinstein and BHO come to mind. Of course, they would still give speeches about “respecting” the 2A. I’m confident that government will manage these affairs with the same efficiency and service as universal health care, which is another big-government mess I didn’t vote for.

    • avatarRon Burgundy says:

      When these politicians speak about “respecting” 2A, for some reason the analogy of a rapist expressing his “respect for women” while squirming in court to get a lower sentence comes to mind…

  3. avatarWilliam Burke says:

    You mean peanut clusters?

  4. avatarJames says:

    ” The SAFE Act dictates that all owners of [newly defined] “assault rifles” must register their guns by April 15, 2014. Those forms aren’t even ready yet.”

    Either a typo on the year for registration or you don’t think government is capable of generating a form in a little over a year’s time. I can’t make up my mind on which is your intent.

    • avatarRobert Farago says:

      As of April 15th, 2013, owners of assault rifles have one year to register their firearms or face jail time, a fine and confiscation.

      Text amended.

      • avatarbloodyspartan says:

        So I have a year to Live, some say the Terminal Diagnosis is up lifting and not as bad as one thinks.

        I guess I will find out.

        Maybe I should start Collecting Full Auto Lowers, or I will accept Donations.

  5. avatarJim L says:

    Surrender? who the fuck said anything about surrendering. This shit was dropped on us.

  6. avatarJim L says:

    Surrender? who the E F F said anything about surrendering? this stuff was dropped on us with a hammer and a sickle.

  7. avatarHere we go again says:

    What we need is not a reduction of guns imposed coercively by top-down gun control legislation.

    What we need is a reduction in paranoia. And gun control laws are only going to INCREASE paranoia, not decrease it.

    We need you — yes, you, reading this — to voluntarily stop carrying your gun everywhere for protection.

    By all means, please KEEP using it for hunting and shooting sports! Those are fun. But don’t carry it for personal safety. There is something deeply wrong with our culture when so many law abiding citizens have enough irrational fear that they believe they must at all times have a means of discharging deadly force to defend themselves. That they’re so frightened that the only thing that gives them peace of mind is the ability to kill — if necessary — a hypothetical attacker.

    Trust me, you think it gives you peace of mind to carry, but it only gives you peace of mind the way that an alcoholic needs a drink for peace of mind. Or a toddler needs a security blanket for peace of mind. So just slowly wean yourself off.

    True, the (very low) odds of being a victim of random violence or crime MIGHT be against you, and the moment you get rid of your gun, you might wish you had it because you’ll face a “threat” from “multiple attackers.” And having a gun could have saved your life.

    But. Is a life where so much stress and anxious energy is spent on having a means (or multiple, escalating means) of lethal force to protect yourself from the perceived “danger” that’s potentially lurking around every corner really qualify as “living” at all?

    Sorry if this is incendiary. I’m on your side — I don’t think tougher gun control laws are the answer. I think a new way of thinking and living, however, is.

    • avatarTabby says:

      This article isn’t even about CC

      • avatarHere we go again says:

        You’re right, it’s not. I just had something I wanted to say and unashamedly posted it where I thought folks would read it. Sorry for not sticking to the topic. It sounds like the SAFE act is another example of a wrongheaded move by a government that will be counter-productive and just make people even more paranoid about their rights (as evidenced by this blog post), though.

        • avatarThomasR says:

          “Percieved danger” ?

          I find your so called thought process HWGA, to be incomprehensible.

          Let’s start really slow:the police carry weapons for what reason? To protect themselves first and by happy chance perhaps an unarmed subject being attacked by a human predator. you know, that “percieved danger” as documented by FBI crime statistics

          Are the human predators going to be attacking an armed police officer? No, obviously, the predators are going to be attacking the mostly un- armed subjects.

          The armed citizen, however, is the exception to this scenario; as a free citizen, able to open carry a weapon without a permit here in New Mexico, I am an island of peace and harmony, able to provide protection for myself and other fellow Americans, which in the last thirteen years of carrying a weapon I have stopped the kidnap and killing of a woman being attacked by her ex-boy friend.

          Really HWGA, you should look at your thought process, it really is very delusional, in one breath, anti-gun people will hyperventilate about the danger of mad-men with sporting rifles and how we need to have an AWB, then in the same breath, attack citizens that carry a weapon to protect against these maniacs as being paranoid and fearful for having an effective means of stopping the mad man other than running away screaming or hiding under a desk while the madman slaughters innocent children.

          So make up your mind, are there dangerous people in the world willing to use violence to get what they want from other human beings? then we need police and citizens with guns to stop them.

          If we don’t have dangerous people in the world willing to use violence against other human beings, then not only do we not need an AWB and other gun control laws, we don’t need police, the military, jails, courts, shoot! lets cut off all funding to to the FBI, CIA, Homeland security, TSA, all forms of private security, armored cars, guards at banks, ect.

          So which is it, HWGA, make a choice.

        • avatarWebPawn says:

          An Arizona Department of Safety Officer pulled over a little old lady from West Virginia for a faulty taillight. When the officer approached the driver, she handed the officer her drivers license, insurance card and Concealed Carry Permit (CCP). The officer took all the documents, looked them over and said. “Mrs. Smith, I see you have a CCP. Do you have any weapons with you?”

          The little old lady replied, “Yes sir, I have a .357 handgun in a hip holster, a .45 in the glove box and a .22 derringer in my boot.”

          The officer looked at her and asked, “Anything else?”

          “Yes sir, I have a Mossberg 500 12-gauge and an AR-15 in the trunk.”

          The officer asked if she was driving to or from a shooting range and the little old lady said she wasn’t, so the officer bent over and looked into the her face and said, “Mrs. Smith, you’re carrying quite a few guns. May I ask what you are afraid of?”

          The little old lady locked eyes with the officer and calmly answered, “Not a damn thing!”

          When Seconds Count – Police Are Minutes Away

    • avatarLeo338 says:

      But don’t carry it for personal safety
      We need you — yes, you, reading this — to voluntarily stop carrying your gun everywhere for protection.

      Are you also the guy who advised women to urinate on themselves to prevent rape? IF they manage to live through such a situation at least they can claim they are “living”, hopefully that will bring some comfort to them. Just as long as they don’t carry a firearm for protection, right?

      It sounds like you are the one that is paranoid and worried who around you is secretly carrying and you want others to stop for your own peace of mind. You really should apply for a job at the NY Times or huffingtonpost because you sound exactly like them.

      • avatarSubZ says:

        +1

        With “friends” like this, we don’t need enemies.

      • avatarHere we go again says:

        First, I would love to write for NYT, but I’m more of a people person. Well, that, and umm, I’m not that good a writer or that perceptive of a cultural critic!

        Second, I never really think about whether people around me are carrying. Because I know that the people that are, for the most part, are law abiding citizens. And because I follow my own advice. Life is too short to worry about who is carrying a gun.

        Third, I am having trouble understanding your jump to rape and urination. Whoever made that argument is despicable. If someone assaults you violently or tries to rape you, by all means, do whatever you need to protect yourself! Since you’ve already boxed me in as Mister NYT and HuffPo, then you already know that I think no victim of rape should ever be blamed for anything.

        I’m disappointed that you assumed that I would believe that it would be “better” to live as a survivor of a violent, traumatic rape after having never carried a gun than to live as someone who was able to prevent herself from becoming a rape victim because she was cautious and carried a gun and was able to fight off her attacker. That is NOT what I’m saying. I’m saying it is not worth it to be carrying a gun with you everywhere for protection, because then in the back of your mind you’re thinking about the possibility of getting raped or robbed or mugged or murdered all the time and that is depressing. I could die in a plane crash, but I don’t let that fear ruin my experience of air travel.

        I realize this is all a matter of degree. Being careful/cautious is a virtue. I lived abroad in a developing country in a high crime area. Not once did think about carrying a gun. Were I woman, I would have carried pepper spray — because that is not something that would kill me if it got into the wrong person’s hands. And I DID get mugged. But the way I kept my peace of mind was by not being attached to my personal possessions and not watching poisonous cable news. We are a nation of over-stimulated amydalas. Carrying guns keeps that amygdala stimulated, making us anxious anger prone. I want us to reduce our anxiety.

        • avatarThomasR says:

          You’re projecting your own fears and insecurities on an inanimate object.

          When I wear a seat belt to protect against physical injury or death from the violence of a car wreck, I don’t feel paranoid, anxious or fearful when I’m driving a car on the road.

          In the same way, when I carry a weapon to protect asgainst the possible injury or death from the violence of a human predator, I don’t feel paranoid, anxious or fearful when I’m out in public, I feel a greater sense of peace and security at being able to provide for my own protection.

          It’s all a matter of perception, just because you feel anxious and fearful at the idea of being able to effectively defend yourself, dosen’t mean others feel that way.

        • “I could die in a plane crash, but I don’t let that fear ruin my experience of air travel” Yes you could and I agree you should not worry about it. But the thing is when you fly do you not pay attention to where the emergency exits are? how many seats you are from an exit? whether you will go to the front of rear to get out? Or do you just ignore all the safety information and sleep through the instructions given to you at the beginning in the flight? If so I’d recommend revising your way of thinking. The mindset that you don’t need your gun at all times is faulty, you don’t get to pick and choose when you will need a firearm. I agree that the chances of being attacked and needing a firearm is very low, but would you rather have it and not need it or have the conciseness of not having one when you need it?

          While carrying a gun may make you personally worry it has the opposite effect on me. Carrying a gun DOES give me peace of mind and not having one causes me to worry in the back of my mind, it does not cripple me nor do I give it a lot of attention but regardless it is there. Carrying a gun means that I will have at least a chance of defending myself even if the chance of attack is slim.

          And I have to say the idea of “By all means, please KEEP using it for hunting and shooting sports! Those are fun. But don’t carry it for personal safety.” is exactly the kind of shit that gun grabbers say in order to shift the public view of guns. “Guns are bad and anyone that carries them is nuts and they don’t need to be used for self defense.” is the kinda Sh*t that has caused anyone that owns a gun to look like a bad guy or a nut.

        • avatarRandy Drescher says:

          I thought your first post was a satirical joke, doesn’t appear to be though. Your not going to carry because it will “destroy” your life? If you can’t keep your imagination from running, maybe. Randy

        • avatarDamDoc says:

          Im still trying to figure out how a gun could stop a plane crash.. hmmm

      • avatarHere we go again says:

        ThomasR,

        I appreciate you starting slow to accomodate my delusional mode of thought, but you still started too fast! A police officer carries a weapon (here in the US anyway — not in other countries) because she is entrusted with keeping the peace, gone through training, and has a job in which it is guaranteed she will be exposed to crime and danger. That’s the difference. Most folks, on the other hand, don’t have jobs like that.

        And our problem is exactly the false choice you presented. We need police because there are a number of dangerous people in the world. But there wouldn’t be so many if there weren’t so many civilians that were paranoid about the dangerous number of people in the world. This culture-wide fear and distrust is what produces the higher number of dangerous citizens in the world…. so in a sense YES you DO have a need to carry a weapon because there ARE lots bad people around — and it’s your right! But just know that you are contributing to the very cause that you’re afraid of.

        So I guess I misspoke earlier. It IS in SOME ways a rational fear that causes people to CC. An apt metaphor is at a sporting event or a crowd where there is not inverted/stadium seating. For whatever reason, one person decides to stand up in order to get a better look (for the purpose of our metaphor, this is our one “bad guy”) So instead of just ignoring him or waiting for someone in charge to ask him to sit down, the person behind him stands up as well, because he’s blocking the view. So then the person behind HER stands up too.. and on and on.

        What we need is to agree to sit down together.

        But no, your attitude — I predict — will be to say “well, that ain’t happenin’ – bad guys aren’t gonna give up their guns, so I won’t either.” So bad guys will look for bigger guns. And then so will you. And on and on. We will trust each other less and less, and because of that alienation, there will be even more bad guys, and hence, more reasons not to trust each other.

        • avatarHere we go again says:

          ThomasR,

          I think that’s a fair point, and I may in fact be projecting my own fears.

          However, our culture doesn’t view seatbelts and bike helmets as weapons of war or symbols of power. They don’t stimulate our reptilian brains the way guns do. Guns have much, much more symbolic meaning. Have you ever been to a “seatbelt show?” How many people do you see getting excited about going to a specialty store that only sells bike helmets? In addition to it saving your life in case of a wreck, if you wanted to could you use your seatbelt to kill someone with the same amount of energy it takes to fire a gun?

        • avatarHere we go again says:

          No, Randy, I never said it would “destroy” my life. I just don’t understand why people are so afrai— I mean cautious. We are becoming a culture characterized by an extreme distrust and individualism. I understand being prepared. Carry pepper spray or a tazer! But something that gives you the capability to take another human life with the squeeze of a finger???

    • avatarMark says:

      I never carry on “crime free days” when the bad guys are off work.

      • avatarHere we go again says:

        And maybe you’ll be around the day that I am being assaulted and you will protect me, and I will thank you for it.

        And then I still won’t carry a gun and will still be sad that we can’t agree to disarm ourselves.

        • avatarDamDoc says:

          hwga – im pro choice (that should be music to your ears).. i will opt to carry.. no one here is asking you to do that. you have that choice… and you have one opinion. you have that right too, as have we. we get where you are coming from. now lutfa… thanks

    • avatarShenandoah says:

      Dude, were you born without a nutsack or did someone cut it off later on in life?

      • avatarHere we go again says:

        Neither, actually.

        Why is my “nutsack” relevant to this conversation? I don’t want to make assumptions, because I don’t know you, but it sounds like you are projecting your own insecurities.

        • avatarShenandoah says:

          P1: Anyone who feels it appropriate to compare a gun owner to a toddler or alcoholic has serious identity problems.
          P2: A man with serious identity problems is unsure which restroom to use.
          P3: A man unsure about which restroom to use does not possess a nutsack.
          P4: You compared gun owners to toddlers and alcoholics.
          C1: You do not possess a nutsack.

          See what I did there? Logic is your friend.

          Please use it next time and abstain from sniffing your farts to support your absurd notions about gun owners.

        • avatarbloodyspartan says:

          What I want to know is where you get off telling others how to Live.

          Do you pay their way , IF not STFU and let them live their life and you live yours.

        • avatarHere we go again says:

          Read my posts bloodyspartan. I’m not telling anyone how to live. This is an internet discussion board. I’m under no illusion that you’re compelled to do what I suggest. I could be wrong, but I interpret a lot of the reactions to be fear of my ideas, which is illustrative, because none of them are radical.

          I said that top-down gun control legislation is NOT the solution!

      • avatarLeo338 says:

        Dude, were you born without a nutsack or did someone cut it off later on in life?

        HAHAHAHA Thanks for that laugh. Iv’e been trying really hard lately to be more reasonable. I can be an a-hole and I usually speak my mind and that offends some people. I was trying to hear this guy out, but I can only take so much before something like that comes out.

        • avatarShenandoah says:

          I’m all for reasonable disagreement and argument, but a guy shouldn’t come on a pro-gun blog and insult the readers with a holier-than-thou attitude expecting a warm welcome. I’m usually more open to dissent, but this is the interwebz and bringing facts to a troll fight will go in one ear and out the other, so to speak.

          As a rule one should never:
          1) Go on a pro-life website and tell dead baby jokes
          2) Go on a gay marriage forum and start with “But the Bible says…”
          3) Go on a gun blog and accuse gun owners of being paranoid and insecure.

          Common sense, right?

        • avatarHere we go again says:

          Shenandoah,

          You’re right, I read my first post again, and I’m sorry I had such a self-righteous and condescending take on things. But I would disagree that any facts have “gone in one ear and out the other.” I think I certainly stand corrected thanks to the thoughtful and reasonable posts/replies by ThomasR, ChrisMcClain, and others. It is ignorant to categorize all or even the majority of folks who carry as paranoid and fearful. I think this reflects a fundamental difference in culture/attitude toward guns that our country is wrestling with. I can respect people exercising their second amendment rights and being determined not to become a victim. I get it — and I get it better now than I did before I started “trolling” on this board. But I think the other points I have been trying to make — and I know it’s a hopeless battle to wage in this context — are still valid. The first is that your choice to carry a weapon/tool capable of lethal force for self defense actually DOES affect the rest of us. The more people want that, the more guns there are in the world, which means it is easier to acquire the means to kill someone easily. To me, it also correlates with this “Rambo” image of F-U don’t try to mess with me because I’ve gotta a bigger dick than you and I’ll whoop your ass if you even think about it (see WebPawn’s story about the little old lady, above… and yes, I understand that little old lady’s don’t have dicks, but that’s not the point – it’s still the same attitude). I understand that being cautious and prepared are virtues, and so is wanting to protect the innocent and your loved ones. But vulnerability and trust are ALSO virtues. Several posts below, Quiet Professional interprets me as saying that gun owners/users are “fearful sheep with overgrown amygdalas.” Actually, it’s kind of the opposite. Gun owners are NOT sheep — they’re DETERMINED not to be sheep, because they are realists and know there are wolves out there. But I think we NEED more sheep — people willing to be open and vulnerable with one another. People aren’t afraid to get to close to a sheep, because they know they have nothing to fear. Gun activists say that with more guns, we will be a more “peaceful” and “polite” society. But I think that “politeness” comes at the cost of true, authentic relationship. You’re polite to someone who you’re afraid to be honest with, because your honesty might piss them off, and if you’re not sure if they have a gun, then…. And I know YOU say you’re a “good guy” and a “law abiding citizen,” but how can I be sure of that? I’m from the south, and I can tell you that just because a culture or group is peaceful and polite on the surface doesn’t mean there aren’t problems and conflict. The conflict just never comes out. The status quo is preserved, the boat doesn’t rock.

          The other point is that guns are not neutral objects. Guns give their users immense power (which speaks to the above points. For intimacy and relationships, power must be put aside.) and, as the old adage goes, with great power comes great responsibility. Powerful substances must be controlled, pure and simple. A line must be drawn somewhere when it comes to powerful objects. The extreme form of the “it’s just an inanimate object” lets me walk around with bombs, explosives, etc. They’re just inanimate objects! A bomb isn’t going to hurt you — it takes a PERSON to push the button! I promise I am a perfectly sane, rational person — I just walk around with a bomb for a vest as a form of art! Don’t worry — I would never push the trigger! I also keep some grenades stored away in my garage, and yeah I just lost my job and got divorced and I hate that yappy dog you just got for your kids, but don’t worry — I’m a sane, law abiding citizen!

          Anyway, sorry again for being an ass. I really did come on here to try to have a discussion, and I think I did, and again, I’ve learned that this issue is way more complicated than I thought.

    • avatarCarlosT says:

      I was in the Boy Scouts and their motto is Be Prepared. I don’t fear a violent attack, but I’ve thought about it and therefore make myself properly prepared. I’ve done the same for car fires (fire extinguisher in the back of the car). Both are unlikely events but I actually know people who have been crime victims (both here and in other countries) and I’ve never known anyone who has had a car fire. Proper precautions are a good idea in either case.

      • avatarHere we go again says:

        I agree. I am actually an eagle scout. Having a fire extinguisher in your car is a GREAT idea, because if it falls into the wrong hands, that person can’t use it to kill you just by squeezing a finger. A fire extinguisher is a tool that COULD be used as a weapon. A gun is a weapon that, thankfully, most people choose to use as a tool for self-defense.

        • avatarjohn says:

          and a screw driver is a weapon some people use as a tool as well!

        • Let us not forget Yo-yos they are a weapon some use for entertainment! I just can’g imagine that.

        • avatarHere we go again says:

          The below comments are illustrative of the absurd arguments that gun guys and gals try to use when they’re desperate. Calling something a “tool” does not make it a tool. Guns are weapons. They are designed to kill people. You can discharge them in self defense, but that doesn’t stop them from being a weapon. Screwdrivers and yo-yos can be used as weapons — both offensively or in self defense — but they are designed to screw in screws or move on a string up and down.

        • A Yo-yo was designed as a weapon, calling it a toy doesn’t make it one. Guns are weapons only when used as a weapon, a gun can be used for a number of other things. A gun may never take a life or harm a person but it still has the possibility, a screwdriver may never screw in a screw but it still has the possibility and the same goes for being a weapon. If one carries a screwdriver or a Yo-yo just for self defense does it make it solely a weapon?

          You are also forgetting something, if no one ever used a gun as a weapon that does not mean that people will not harm one another. Take the guns away and you still have evil people but now you have 350 pound men praying on 100 pound women, a gun makes just about any physical attribute equal.

        • And also it seems like you think guns are why humans commit acts of atrocity. It is an object that just sits there, it does not tell us to kill people we do that ourselves. If all the guns in the world disappeared evil people would still use objects to kill. A gun is not the problem humans are and taking guns away from good people does not automatically make all the bad ones good.

        • avatarHere we go again says:

          ChrisMcLain I guess you know something about the history of yo-yos that I don’t. I didn’t realize they were originally made as weapons. Thanks for educating me. In the present, however, I BELIEVE they have been repurposed and are designed as toys.

          I find it hard to imagine how guns can be re-purposed as toys or tools. See, even when yo-yos were weapons they never gave their users nearly the amount of power that guns do. If they did, why don’t you just carry a yo-yo for defense yourself??

          You say that it’s irrational to be afraid of “guns” because “people kill people” and “bad guys could use a screwdriver to kill” or “bad guys could use a knife to kill” or “bad guys could use a yo-yo to kill” — ignoring the fact that a loaded gun is completely distinct from a yo-yo or a screwdriver in the potential energy that it stores. The fact that no one will acknowledge or concede this point and instead continue to make faulty comparisons between guns and absurd household objects demonstrates the stubbornness and closed-mindedness of much of the gun lobby.

          Taking away guns does not remove evil or automatically make people less bad. But it does reduce the symbols of violence and power in our culture that cause distrust. It’s absurd that so many people feel the need to carry around everywhere on their hip something that gives them the capability to end someone’s life.

        • The point people are trying to make is that everyday objects have the capability to end a persons life, a gun is just much more efficient at doing it. ” ignoring the fact that a loaded gun is completely distinct from a yo-yo or a screwdriver in the potential energy that it stores” I will concede that fact but at the same time that is the whole point of a gun. A gun is meant to be powerful, that is why it is used for self defense a gun is an equalizer. Back to the Yo-yos, a Yo-yo was the most powerful weapon of the day. People carried them around for self defense or even in war. This went on until a more powerful weapon came along. Today our common weapon that is more powerful than any before it is the gun. Eventually there will be a more powerful weapon developed and people will call for “(insert word here) control” and even then that object will not cause people to commit atrocities even if it is unparalleled in power.

          I distrust people because people are dishonest not because they carry around a gun. If that person is carrying around a gun and doing in a responsible manner I would be more inclined to trust that person because in my eyes they have a level head.

          “Taking away guns does not remove evil or automatically make people less bad. But it does reduce the symbols of violence and power in our culture that cause distrust.” They are only symbols of violence because they are used in a violent manner by violent people. I have carried my gun around for a long time and it has never led to distrust or violence and most likely never will. And again back to your argument, if a screwdriver is used instead of a gun then would a screwdriver be the symbol of violence and distrust?

        • avatarDamDoc says:

          and hwga it a tool for bloomberg.

      • avatarHere we go again says:

        Bravo, Shenandoah. If you use the same kind of logic to inform your decision to carry a gun as you do to decide whether an anonymous poster on an internet blog has testicles, then you have proven my point exactly. Since you have used the evidence on hand to make a supremely confident conclusion about whether or not I have a scrotum, I am sure your conclusions about bad guys and the need for concealed firearms are just as solid.

        Just keep on believin’ what you decide to believe. I’m glad the kool-aid tastes good.

        • avatarRandy Drescher says:

          You are a lady aren’t you? Randy

        • avatarHere we go again says:

          No, I’m not, why do you ask? Normally when people say things like that they’re implying that no man could possibly want to be a lady, because ladies are inferior. Is that what you believe?

    • avatarRalph says:

      Yipee! A new tr0ll!

    • avatarDave says:

      One can also carry simply to exercise one’s Second Amendment rights.

    • avatarbloodyspartan says:

      This has to be satire , for surely you have not seem the Cato map of DEAD INNOCENTS.

    • avatarJohn in AK says:

      Do you have a fire extinguisher, even though you do not anticipate your house catching fire, and probably don’t know anyone who has used one lately? Does your child’s school have fire drills, even though the school is not usually ablaze? Do you wear a seat-belt when you drive, although you do not plan on crashing? Does your computer have anti-virus protection? Do you lock your home’s doors when you leave? Do you wear clean underwear, although you have no thought of being in a terrible accident? Do you have health and life insurance, although you are not presently sick and do not intend to die for some time? If you do these things, you must be paranoid, because houses and schools rarely burn, cars rarely crash by the percentages, burglary is not THAT common, and your chances of being rushed to an ER are slim.

      Or, perhaps, you just wish not to gamble with your life, the life of your family, or your property and security.

      Preparing for the worst does not indicate paranoia; It merely indicates the presence of mind to prepare. When one DOES need a fire extinguisher, or the knowledge to get out of a smoke-filled, burning building, or a seat-belt at the moment of collision, it’s too late to get one, or figure out the way, or put it on.

      For most of us, carrying a firearm is insurance, nothing more; We do not look for lethal conflict, do not expect it at every turn, will avoid it if humanly possible, but if it DOES come, we will have the means to deal with it. The alternative may very well be our death, or the death of a loved one.

      There is one more point, that you have missed: There actually IS ‘danger’ potentially lurking around every corner–the problem is that one never knows which corner until the moment it is turned. That does not mean that EVERY corner has danger, only that the potential exists. To deny the potential danger, rare though it may be for most, is to deny that Things DO Go Bump In The Night, that there ARE Boogeymen, and that we are fragile beings, easily damaged or killed, with just the blink of an eye’s worth of chance between life and death.

    • avatarJoe Wright says:

      FOAD ASS WIPE !!!!!!

    • avatarQuiet Professional says:

      Your arguments rests on the faulty premise that gun owners carry firearms out of fear. We do not carry guns because we are fearful, fretful little sheep with overgrown amygdalas. We carry guns because we abhore being victims. That is NOT the same as “fearing” we’ll be victimized. Not at all the same. And we carry because we feel duty-bound to look out for the safety and well-being of our families.

      Call us egotists on account of that mindset (although I would argue that point) but don’t call us fearful.

      • avatarHere we go again says:

        Your point is well taken. Thanks for making the distinction about being fearful vs demanding your sense of self and right to life be protected. I like that. Please see my most recent response above to Shenandoah about the point of being sheep.

        However, I DO seem to see a lot on internet message boards — not, however, in response to anything I’ve written on here — coming from gun rights activists that seems overly fearful. They’re the standard “cable news” arguments (and cable news is DESIGNED to be hyperbolic and stimulate the amygdala and make people feel dependent on it for their information) that say that the government wants to confiscate guns in order to institute an authoritarian regime and strip everyone’s rights away (or something…). And they make the ol’ reliable Hitler argument — saying that taking away guns was step one in Hitler’s m.o. on the road to fascism (if there’s anything you don’t like, compare it to Hitler, while if there’s anything you’re in favor of, compare it to MLK). I think all of your points are valid, but I still insist there is a significant population of people that are irrationally FEARFUL and willfully resist facts! They’re the ones that send you the email forwards about Obama being a Muslim-socialist-liberation theologian anarchist. They’re the reason why factcheck.org is still in business. (And YES they exist on the left, too!!!)

        Finally I sincerely apologize for insinuating that the people who read this blog and these comments are like that. But, this is, after all, the internet. And on anonymous comment boards, facts go in one ear and out the other.

  8. avatarCasey T says:

    So legislation that required a vote without a thorough review has huge flaws? Next you’ll be telling me Obama doesn’t want us to own guns.

  9. avatarTabby says:

    Are they actually going to register? Thank God I live in a firearm friendly state, but if I lived there NO WAY would I comply with this unconstitutional nightmare of a law! It’s an illegal law. Sorry, I’m one law abiding person that would rather be made a ‘criminal’ under a law like that then let them come for confiscation…And you know that’s Cuomo’s ultimate plan.

  10. avatarNor'Easter says:

    Good for you Tabby and keep up the struggle. The residents of NYS have labored under so many regs for so long that it’s just another piece of garbage to deal with.
    As far as all the abuse being heaped upon New York State lately – I understand completely – but please remember the long suffering denizens of all the counties resisting and rejecting this monstrosity, practically all of them north of Metroland, are as freedom loving as anyone. In defense, I’d like to present a copy of a resolution filed in opposition to the Safe Act which demonstrates the true sprit of real New Yorkers outside the urban jungles as well as the upscale enclaves of Manhattan and some newly gentrified suburbs fallen under the spell of the grabbers. I find it inspiring, even in the belly of the beast, free people struggle on. There’s still some brave and free citizens out there – just not enough of us.

    Town of Genesee resolution calling for repeal of the erroneously named NY SAFE act
    Passed unanimously March 19th 2013
    Resolution 3-19-13a of 2013

    A resolution condemning the manner and passage of the erroneously named NY SAFE Act and supporting repeal of state legislation infringing on the second amendment of the Constitution.

    WHEREAS the members of the Town Council of the Town of Genesee, New York have been elected by the approximately 2,000 residents of the Town of Genesee as their representatives; and

    WHEREAS said members have taken an oath; indeed the very same oath as the members of the Senate and Assembly, as well as the Governor, of New York State; to uphold the constitution of the State of New York and the Constitution of the United States of America; and

    WHEREAS said constitutions contain clauses protecting the individual, inalienable, God-given right of the citizens of the United States of America and the citizens of the State of New York to keep and bear arms without infringement; and

    WHEREAS on January 15, 2013 the Legislature of the State of New York passed the erroneously named NY SAFE Act which contains multiple violations of said rights; and

    WHEREAS this passage occurred within a period of less than twenty-four hours of introduction to the legislature, thereby not allowing the mandatory three day review period; and

    WHEREAS this avoidance of the mandatory review period was accomplished by the Governor’s declaration of a Message of Necessity; and

    WHEREAS the reasons listed by the Governor in his request for said Message of Necessity are wholly inadequate, completely inaccurate, and without justification; and

    WHEREAS the aforementioned infringements upon the rights of the citizens of New York State will have no effect in reducing crimes committed with firearms; and

    WHEREAS the sacrifice of freedoms for the illusion of security secures neither;

    NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Genesee of the County of Allegany of the State of New York hereby condemns the manner in which the aforementioned legislation was passed and finds the actions of the Governor deplorable and unbecoming of an elected official and representative of the people of New York State; and be it further

    RESOLVED, that the Town of Genesee demands a public apology by the Governor for his abuse of the legislative process of the State of New York; and be it further

    RESOLVED, that the Town of Genesee demands the complete and total repeal of the NY SAFE Act of 2013 in its entirety by the State Assembly and State Senate members; and be it further

    RESOLVED, that the Town of Genesee demands the State Assembly and State Senate, in the very near future, consider legislation which repeals various laws currently in place that infringe upon the rights of the citizens of the State of New York to keep and bear arms, including, but not limited to, the following:

    Firearm magazine capacity limitations;
    Requirements for permits to carry a firearm concealed;
    Limitations on the aesthetic appearance of certain firearms, erroneously referred to as “assault weapons;”
    Restrictions on locations where firearms can be carried, both openly and concealed, including State Forests and Parks; and
    Restrictions on other arms constitutionally protected under the second amendment including knives, pepper spray, swords, air/spring rifles, etc.; and be it further
    RESOLVED, that the Town of Genesee finds these aforementioned and any other infringements upon the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms unconstitutional and illegal; and be it further

    RESOLVED, that the Town of Genesee hereby urges nearby towns to enact similar resolutions urging the State Legislature to action; and be it further

    RESOLVED, that certified copies of this resolution be delivered to the following individuals: President Barack Hussein Obama; Governor Andrew Cuomo; Senator Kirsten Gillibrand; Senator Charles Schumer; Representative Thomas Reed; State Senator Catharine Young; State Assemblyman Joseph Giglio.

    A motion to adopt the resolution was made by CP Bluhm, seconded by CP Sherman.

    Roll Call:

    Supervisor Barnes – Aye

    CP Holcomb – Aye

    CP Cannon – Aye

    CP Sherman – Aye

    CP Bluhm – Aye

    The Clerk declared this 19th day of March, 2013 that the foregoing resolution was duly carried.

    Rebecca Torrey,

    Town Clerk

  11. avatarMark N. says:

    I think you miss the boat on this one. The system was DESIGNED to fail so that people will NOT be able opt out or be able to register their assault weapons. Duh.

    • avatarNor'Easter says:

      A very good point, the entire system here is designed to be as confusing as possible just to discourage anybody from using it. It’s a good warning for anyone who thinks that “common sense” has anything to do with any gun control measures.
      Beware!

  12. avatarRalph says:

    In MA, all guns are registered — handguns, rifles and shotguns. Registration occurs at the time of transfer by purchase, sale, gift, will, intestacy, you name it. It’s been that way since ’68. The Commonwealth is just trying to keep us safe, dontcha know.

  13. avatarSoccerchainsaw says:

    Ok, so the state passes an unfunded mandate on the counties. People may “opt out” of FOIA requests about gun ownership and the counties must process those forms. So there isn’t a single pro-gun leaning county in the state that has figured out that it is in the public interest to assume all gun owners there wish to opt out? It is in the interest of the gun owners and the non-gun owners alike that the criminal element are kept in the dark about where the guns are. It is also in the public interest that valuable resources are not diverted away from more productive activities like say prosecuting bad guys. There has to be at least one county with a thimble full of horse sense to figure this out.

  14. avatarPat says:

    The smaller the fed gov is, the more efficient. Who knew? Military and national disasters/emergencies are all they should be doing. And national parks.
    I would cut fed gov by 25-33%.

  15. avatargary says:

    Nearly a third of the battles fought in the Revolutionary War were fought in New York.
    “New York did differ from some other colonies in that there existed a significant number of Loyalists (those loyal to ‘The King’) within its ranks, perhaps as many as one half of the population. In fact, the colonial assembly in New York remained in Loyalist hands until some months after Lexington and Concord.”
    The Fall of New York (September 1776) “In New York, Washington…felt compelled to defend the city due to its political importance.” Difficult to do with so many loyal to ‘The King’.
    Is New York falling again?

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.