Subway in East Islip robbed at Gunpoint on Saturday night

[TJLamb0518]

Originally Posted by Joe461

If someone robs a bank:
1. with a gun in the trunk of the getaway car?
2. with a holstered gun?
3. with a gun drawn?
4. with a gun fired?
5. with a shot that actually hits someone?
6. with a fake gun that looks real?

Since 3,4,5 (and to an extent 2) were explicitly stated in my original post on the topic, you are not doing your cause any favors.

Originally Posted by Joe461

Which gets the "no jury, no trial" penalty you advocate? Are all the above subject to equal punishments?

Are they legal guns registered to the criminal in question? If not, ALL of them with the exception of the fake gun. Not to state the obvious (although that is apparently and sadly necessary) a fake gun is (by definition) not a gun.

Originally Posted by Joe461

What if they catch the guy after he gets away (not caught in the act)? He claims he is innocent? Still no trial - straight to jail with no appeal or parole?

He goes for possession of an illegal firearm and goes to trial over the OTHER crimes in question.

Originally Posted by Joe461

What if I shoot someone in legitimate self-defense, but the DA doesn't agree? Without a jury or trial, does the DA simply throw me in jail for good?

Shoot them with an illegally owned gun? I think you know the answer.

Originally Posted by Joe461

Do you realize that guns harm much fewer people than cars? Do you advocate a ban on automobiles? People commit crime with vehicles all the time and and still get their license back. A non-violent felon is basically banned for life from firearm ownership. It there was any "common sense" in lawmaking as opposed to pandering and soundbite making) this wouldn't be the case.

Of those automobile related deaths, how many are intentional? I will say a huge majority of people who get a drivers license never intend to take a life. They intend to drive. A gun has one purpose and one purpose only. To fire bullets. What the bullets are fired at is up to the user, but a car is not intended to be destructive, a gun is mainly designed to be.

Originally Posted by Joe461

I do love this quote. Repealing the 2A would be like instituing prohibition, not repealing it. How did that one work out? Mass non-compliance, the creation of a massive organized crime network (mafia) which exists to this day, gang wars with thousands dead as rival gangs fought over turf. Untold government revenue lost on taxes due to an underground economy for "illegal" goods. Millions in tax dollars spent in enforcement and prosecution of prohibition.

We already HAVE "mass non-compliance". So I guess we can be as....extreme as the original responder to this topic and advocate arming everyone? because THAT works out so much better?

Originally Posted by Joe461

All prohibition does is turn law-abiding citizens into criminals. Which proves that gun control is not about guns, it is about control. Just like my "56mph" example, the point is to turn everyone into a criminal. If everyone is breaking _some_ law, the government can control you.

And sadly, a large portion of the population have shown they are incapable of controlling themselves. So yes, I'd like SOMEONE to. I'd prefer it if they could control themselves, but until that day comes and I can commute to work on my flying unicorn......

Originally Posted by Joe461

What do you think would actually happen in your "utopia" where there is no 2A and a ban on gun ownership? Only the criminals would have guns - or sticks, knives, cars, homemade bombs, etc. We would be a considerably less safe society. The biggest, strongest thug would always have the upper hand.

I don't see bands of legal gun-owners roaming the streets (outside the police, who should be the only ones civilly who are armed) keeping me safe. And again, based on how gun advocates react to making things tougher for criminals, I'm kind of glad they're not.

Originally Posted by Joe461

It is easy to get wrapped up in the agenda-driven news cycle. They only report on the doom and gloom. You don't hear the stories about how guns help people... in self-defense, for recreation (hunting, target, competition). If it wasn't for everyday personal experience, most people would think the only weather is "hurricane" or "blizzard" (with the occasional polar vortex).

Guns help WHAT people in recreation? Gun advocates. Sorry, again....these replies make me care less and less about them being content.

[SilverBulletZ06]

Originally Posted by Howard Beale

Well said.

I don't know how TJ came up with what you wrote being pro-crime?

Do you think there's any chance when we'll get the bs SAFE act repealed? maybe when Cuomos out of office?

unSAFE Act will not be repealed.. ever.

The CA2 has yet to rule in favor of gun rights. The SCOTUS refuses to take the cases. See also: dissent for Writ Certiorari in the Jackson case. Maybe after the SCOTUS stops playing politics we can get a ruling on an actual written and enumerated right instead of making stuff up.

[SilverBulletZ06]

Originally Posted by TJLamb0518

How I came up with it is really rather simple. I advocated many ways to make it tougher on criminals WITH guns while not making things worse for legal gun owners.

Actually you stated I should be REQUIRED to be vetted and trained to own a gun, said that we need to restrict firearms more to prevent illegal guns, and showed that you really just want anyone with a gun doing anything wrong needs to be thrown in jail without due process.

But the replies are all the knee jerk reaction of someone who is afraid they're coming to take his guns away.

You mean like NY and Cuomo wanted to do, had plans to do, but didn't have enough votes to accomplish?

Which means one of a few things:

The poster IS an illegal gun owner (in which case, he has no real say in this)
The poster is not a gun owner is is only shouting at the whirlwind (highly unlikely)
The poster is a legal gun owner but is against increasing punishments on people who use illegal guns to commit crimes. And well, if you're against it, you're for the opposing viewpoint.

I guess I'm #4. Educated gun owner who needs to drive 100+ miles to buy a pistol (Home, Gun store, SCPD HQ, Gun Store, SCPD HQ, Home. Use of illegal guns is already illegal. Making it illegal-er to murder someone doesn't seem to have the desired effect. However, keeping law-abiding citizens from owning a firearm and the ability to carry and use it does seem to have a large effect (see also: huge 300%+ spike in DC firearms permit applications after the Wrenn (?) decision.

Prior to this thread, I really was very pro legal gun ownership because (again) statistics show VERY few gun crimes are committed by legal gun owners.

No where in this thread did you show that until after you were proven to be to the radical side of gun control.

And it seems every time a school shooting or church shooting or gang violence happens, the reaction by the people who get their opinions via a 24 hour news channel is to make things tougher via gun laws. Of course, gun laws only apply to those people obeying them to begin with. The criminals don't CARE if you increase the existing laws. Yes, I do feel the laws should be expanded in their current state to cover all firearms, rifles and shotguns included. But if you're already doing it legally, this should not be a hardship.

Dichotomy to previous quote. "I support gun ownership as a right, but..." seems to be the going rate for the Bloomberg and left-wingnut camp. You seem to be showing that you support it. I postulated the specifics prior: what individual right requires the same individual burden on the citizen to exercise that right like the 2A. We already see what happens when the state makes a law that is 1/10th the requirement of the NY gun laws on Abortion. Record breaking timing through the 9th Circuit and record rate in publishing that ruling.

After seeing the reactions to the ideas of making things harder for criminals however....I'm thinking the second amendment may just need to be re-examined. After all, many of the other rights afforded us in that document are constantly ignored anyway (Freedom of Speech? Unless you say something on air or in print or even publicly that offends some group, race, gender, age group, demographic...then you can lose your job and be vilified for it. Freedom of Religion? Unless you practice a religion that offends someone...then your place of worship gets trashed and you get mocked or insulted or harassed). If only the gun advocates would champion THESE causes with the same fervor as they do the one that gets people shot.....

We do. You know, the same reason gun owners had to slap their heads and sigh when the #WeShootBack started. We've been telling you that since the 50's and 60's. We said that these were Jim Crow laws, ignored on that fact, then everyone gets that stupid look on their face when you see a court document showing that the government officials said "Gun control was never supposed to be enforced on white people.". We said it with the NFA, the GCA, with the NYC laws (because every low income person has $300+ dollars for permitting, plus hoops), etc etc etc for gun laws.

We've also told the gays to arm yourself because armed gays don't get bashed. Armed churches don't get burned (my parents church was burned down by bigots a long time ago).

When you talk about other issues, your looking at a largely libertarian "leave me alone, I leave you alone" group who gets tired of being made felons int he middle of the night and being villified by the media AND the government every time some idiot does something in a place we are told we shouldn't be defending ourselves. In your talking about this, I find it hard to believe you have talked to many gun owners.