Leaving buffalo ny after 50 yrs goodbye to a controlled state (New York: neighborhood, school)

[Ex New Yorker]

HowardRoarke:

"Invasion? The enemy is already here. You think the Buffalo Police Dept is going to make an effort to come to your aid if things really got bad in this country, or if there was a protracted power outage? Same goes for anywhere else, far as I'm concerned. Just ask the people who got through the aftermath of Katrina, they clung to their guns 'cuz the cops turned tail and went home to protect their own families and properties."

Thank You, Howard! It was evident that this individual "bg7" had no understanding of my post, the 2nd Amendment's primary purpose is to give the citizenry the ability to fight an oppressive government. I know what their answer will be: "You think you can hold off the U.S. military with your AR 15's in your split level ranch?" My answer to that would be do you think our U.S. military would turn on their own citizens destroying their own friends, neighbors and relatives? Or would that same military use those same weapons against the very government that ordered them to do so? I'm guessing the latter, at least here in the United States. Perhaps we'll never know. As far as crime goes Detroit's Police Chief James Craig has made national headlines by encouraging honest citizens to defend themselves. Yet “Progressives” Deplore Chief Craig of Detroit Encouraging Self Defense". You really have to wonder who's side "Progressives" are on. "bg7" claims to be neither Liberal or Republican yet has all the Liberal talking points down pat. That's to make themselves appear to be open minded but they are anything but. Why don't they just admit what they are and be proud of it? I am a "Constitutional Conservative" damn proud of it, and could care less what anyone thinks about me or my opinions.

"Editorial: Detroiters fend for selves to fight criminals
Police chief is outspoken about citizens' rights to protect themselves in face of imminent danger
From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140502/OPINION01"

"bg7" claims: "You ain't free at all - you clearly live in fear. No freedom yet for you buddy, and never likely to come for you."

I am free of having to live in a state controlled by "useful idiots" such as him/her. This fool has no idea of what freedom is if they think that being dependent on government is freedom. Once you are dependent on someone else for your wants and needs you will forever dance to their tune. That's Freedom? Maybe in their warped mind, but not for me. Now, if you'll excuse me while I retreat to my bunker with my AR15 and cower in fear it makes me feel good, that's why I want it.

[ckhthankgod]

Originally Posted by Ex New Yorker

HowardRoarke:


Thank You, Howard! It was evident that this individual "bg7" had no understanding of my post, the 2nd Amendment's primary purpose is to give the citizenry the ability to fight an oppressive government. I know what their answer will be: "You think you can hold off the U.S. military with your AR 15's in your split level ranch?" My answer to that would be do you think our U.S. military would turn on their own citizens destroying their own friends, neighbors and relatives? Or would that same military use those same weapons against the very government that ordered them to do so? I'm guessing the latter, at least here in the United States. Perhaps we'll never know. As far as crime goes Detroit's Police Chief James Craig has made national headlines by encouraging honest citizens to defend themselves. Yet “Progressives” Deplore Chief Craig of Detroit Encouraging Self Defense". You really have to wonder who's side "Progressives" are on. "bg7" claims to be neither Liberal or Republican yet has all the Liberal talking points down pat. That's to make themselves appear to be open minded but they are anything but. Why don't they just admit what they are and be proud of it? I am a "Constitutional Conservative" damn proud of it, and could care less what anyone thinks about me or my opinions.



I am free of having to live in a state controlled by "useful idiots" such as him/her. This fool has no idea of what freedom is if they think that being dependent on government is freedom. Once you are dependent on someone else for your wants and needs you will forever dance to their tune. That's Freedom? Maybe in their warped mind, but not for me. Now, if you'll excuse me while I retreat to my bunker with my AR15 and cower in fear it makes me feel good, that's why I want it.

To be honest, I think that outside forces like cartels and other groups are still more of an issue. Are people going to form militias against said groups if things start to "go down", as that seems to be the context of which the 2nd amendment was written for given the time and origins of those that wrote it.

Also, what about the case of United States v. Miller (1939)?

[RocketSci]

Originally Posted by Ex New Yorker

HowardRoarke:


Thank You, Howard! It was evident that this individual "bg7" had no understanding of my post, the 2nd Amendment's primary purpose is to give the citizenry the ability to fight an oppressive government.

FYI: NY vs Arizona:

People below poverty level:
AZ - 17.2% NY - 14.9%
Children below poverty level:
AZ - 27% NY - 23%
Medicaid recipients:
AZ - 25.1% NY - 25.7%
Medicare recipients:
AZ - 14.1% NY - 15.2%
Percent of workforce who are federal government employees
AZ - 2.3% NY - 1.3%
USA crime index by state (1st is safest, 51st is least safe)
AZ - 43rd NY - 10th
Illegal alien population by percent:
AZ - 6% NY - 3.2%
Incarceration rate (per 100,000 residents)
AZ - 567 (6th highest) NY - 307 (37th highest)

So, to compare NY and AZ:
In AZ:
More likely to be poor, especially children
Less likely to receive assistance via medicare or medicaid
More almost twice as likely to receive your paycheck from the federal government
Almost twice as likely to be a crime victim
Almost twice as likely to encounter or be an illegal alien resident (not just passing thru)
Almost twice as likely to be in prison or know someone in prison

Also, back to the off-topic discussion, who defines an "oppressive government" which justifies action? There are many, many varieties of groups who feel oppressed:

• How about poor citizens of those states which refused to accept Medicare expansion subsidies, available in other states to other US citizens, and can not afford health care in their current situation? (14th Amendment)
• How about minority citizens who are continually, violently, and humiliatingly stopped and frisked in some cities for no cause? (4th Amendment)
• How about accused, not convicted, citizens who have property seized after arrest for "evidence" or "suspected contraband"? (4th Amendment)
• How about "Occupy" participants who were driven by force and arrested on "public" property during peaceable assembly? (1st Amendment, 14th Amendment)
• How about if the US Citizen relations of "illegal" aliens supporting the "human right" to live freely in the US and become naturalized citizens? (14th Amendment, Universal Declaration of Human Rights)

Is it justified that they should arm themselves to fight the "oppressive" government? Would you support their "right" to do so, and exercise it?

Think about this in the context of the Ukraine today. Who is the oppressive government - the Ukrainian government who, within their legal context, is defending its territory against Russian agitators - or the Russian government who supports the pro-Russian militias who reside in the Ukraine and feel that their "rights" are being abused?

[Ex New Yorker]

RocketSci:
I now live in Arizona, spent most of my life in New York, you couldn't pay me enough money to return there. I'll take Arizona any day. Your other questions don't even warrant an answer.

[Ex New Yorker]

ckhthankgod:

"Also, what about the case of United States v. Miller (1939)?"

In my opinion it's unconstitutional, but my opinion doesn't count. More important is the "Heller" and "McDonald" decisions. Regarding Miller it is still legal to own those firearms providing you pay a $200 tax stamp and register them with the federal government. Some states you can not own them period.

"To be honest, I think that outside forces like cartels and other groups are still more of an issue. Are people going to form militias against said groups if things start to "go down", as that seems to be the context of which the 2nd amendment was written for given the time and origins of those that wrote it."

I don't think people will form militia's to fight off the cartels. That is the governments job. The 2nd Amendments purpose was to be armed against an oppressive government and according to some state constitutions such as my home state, for personal self defense.

[RocketSci]

Originally Posted by Ex New Yorker

RocketSci:
I now live in Arizona, spent most of my life in New York, you couldn't pay me enough money to return there. I'll take Arizona any day. Your other questions don't even warrant an answer.

I thought they were legitimate questions in the context of how one defines an "oppressive" government.

[grouse789]

Meh... not wanting to be on either side. Just sayin is all, but here goes....
Regarding the 2nd amendment...
Just remember when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
That's all I got on this, im out 10- 4 - K

[gwgirl80]

Originally Posted by HowardRoarke

1/4 of NY residents are on Medicaid, and the burden on NY taxpayers is more than that of CA and TX, combined.

The money has to come from somewhere.

I can tell you from experience that many other states do have a better handle on how to use the programs with less waste and abuse of the funding. New York State has allowed the program to become a piggy bank for those in the medical field and all fields in relation to it. Medicaid is a mess because of years paid off politicians making rules and regulations that benefited the health care professionals, nursing homes, medical suppliers, home health care industry, even transportation and taxi companies were making a killing. This topic could go on for days, I have witnessed the abuse by everyone to make a buck off the government, from the doctors to some of the "entrepreneur" patients. Problem though is much of our health care in this country is built up by screwing the tax paying citizens out of money via medicare and Medicaid. It will be a few more years before we see any major changes to the way things are handled.

But even with the high cost, I rather live in New York state and pay taxes here because the odds for a low income child to move out of poverty are higher here than in less expensive states. I lived in the ultra cheap, low taxed, laid back state of Mississippi and witnessed the results of what happens when citizens do not try to help one another, especially the elderly and children, and refuse to take care of the basic needs of a community and it's people.

[Ex New Yorker]

RocketSci:

"I thought they were legitimate questions in the context of how one defines an "oppressive" government."

Okay then, how about if one gets a traffic or parking ticket and the judge slaps them with a fine, yet the offender feels they've been victimized by an overzealous police force? Or a nasty clerk at the department of motor vehicles? An oppressive government is one which systematically destroys the "Constitution" which they are sworn to uphold. Kind of like what the Nazi's did after the burning of the Reichstag in which all human rights were suspended and only one political party was established. Don't think it can happen here? Don't bet on it, history does have a tendency to repeat itself. It just hasn't happened here yet. Maybe it's because we have that 2nd Amendment right. The founders of this nation put it there for a very valid reason. Anyone can pick and choose incidents where they feel someone has been victimized by some government entity. Ukrainians have a very limited right to bear arms, so there's no doubt who the oppressor's are.

Historically, how has gun control worked out for disarmed citizens?
Leaders and governments generally fear an armed citizenry, which is why the Founding Fathers gave us the Second Amendment. Defending ourselves from burglars and hunting was a little bonus, but the Founding Fathers intent for the Second Amendment was to protect ourselves from tyranny. Gun control supporters would like the false-flag Batman shooting to act as a catalyst toward disarming the American citizen. Below is a little list of what happens after governments disarm their citizens. How does this list compare to the gun control supporters?


Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49-78,000,000
Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) 12,000,000 (concentration camps and civilians deliberately killed in WWII plus 3 million Russian POWs left to die)
Leopold II of Belgium (Congo, 1886-1908) 8,000,000
Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39) 6,000,000 (the gulags plus the purges plus Ukraine's famine)
Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44) 5,000,000 (civilians in WWII)
Ismail Enver (Turkey, 1915-20) 1,200,000 Armenians (1915) + 350,000 Greek Pontians and 480,000 Anatolian Greeks (1916-22) + 500,000 Assyrians (1915-20)
Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000
Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94) 1.6 million (purges and concentration camps)
Menghistu (Ethiopia, 1975-78) 1,500,000
Yakubu Gowon (Biafra, 1967-1970) 1,000,000
Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan, 1979-1982) 900,000
Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1994) 800,000
Saddam Hussein (Iran 1980-1990 and Kurdistan 1987-88) 600,000
Tito (Yugoslavia, 1945-1987) 570,000
Sukarno (Communists 1965-66) 500,000
Fumimaro Konoe (Japan, 1937-39) 500,000? (Chinese civilians)
Jonas Savimbi (Angola, 1975-2002) 400,000
Mullah Omar - Taliban (Afghanistan, 1986-2001) 400,000
Idi Amin (Uganda, 1969-1979) 300,000
Yahya Khan (Pakistan, 1970-71) 300,000 (Bangladesh)
Benito Mussolini (Ethiopia, 1936; Libya, 1934-45; Yugoslavia, WWII) 300,000
Mobutu Sese Seko (Zaire, 1965-97) ?
Charles Taylor (Liberia, 1989-1996) 220,000

answers.yahoo.com/question

[RocketSci]

Originally Posted by Ex New Yorker

RocketSci:

Okay then, how about if one gets a traffic or parking ticket and the judge slaps them with a fine, yet the offender feels they've been victimized by an overzealous police force? Or a nasty clerk at the department of motor vehicles? An oppressive government is one which systematically destroys the "Constitution" which they are sworn to uphold. Kind of like what the Nazi's did after the burning of the Reichstag in which all human rights were suspended and only one political party was established. Don't think it can happen here? Don't bet on it, history does have a tendency to repeat itself. It just hasn't happened here yet. Maybe it's because we have that 2nd Amendment right. The founders of this nation put it there for a very valid reason. Anyone can pick and choose incidents where they feel someone has been victimized by some government entity. Ukrainians have a very limited right to bear arms, so there's no doubt who the oppressor's are.

Thank you for your reply.

You first example, then, sounds similar to the Bundy situation. Whether or not one agrees with the laws involved, Bundy was in violation of current laws, as determined thru the courts.

Regarding whether an oppressive government "destroys the Constitution" - the examples I provided are interpreted by many as just doing so.

Do I think history can repeat itself in the US? Yes I do, but the history of the US is very different from that of Germany. The Federal government and people have a history of social expansion and openness (immigration, civil rights, free trade) alternating with isolationism and xenophobia (closed borders, tariffs, belief in Exceptionalism). Some federal policies, and State governments, especially in the South, have a history of demanding self-determination and protection of the ruling class even if it hurts the weakest members of their society (slavery, segregation, Native relocation, refusal to enforce federal laws).

The US also has a history of quelling rebellions, and has gotten more efficient over time (Shay's, Whiskey, Fries, Bonus Army), especially thru infiltration (left and right wing groups from the 1950s to the present).

Per Wiki, Ukrainians are allowed to own up to 3 weapons provided they are kept unloaded and stored safely, with the exception of handguns. I am not sure that I would call that oppressive, but it is limited. Russia allows up to 10 weapons. I don't believe that the Russians are "free-er" in any meaningful sense than the Ukrainian people. To me a good analogy to the Crimea situation is the annexation of the Sudetenland, which was welcomed and supported by most of the people there.