U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Thanksgiving Day!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Jersey
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-18-2017, 07:37 AM
 
10,756 posts, read 8,118,139 times
Reputation: 13500

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerania View Post
You do have a gun culture in New Jersey, just not in your town or area. At least not that you see. There are plenty of LEOs and retired, military and retired, and people from other states moving in. None of them own a gun?

Northwestern and Southern New Jersey aren't completely hemmed up. There are still places where you can be alone in the woods all day. I get that you don't do that, but it doesn't represent the state.
I didn't say people don't own guns or don't bring them out for a specific purpose. I'm talking about open or concealed carry and THAT type of gun culture. I think the person I responded to was talking about carrying. We are nothing like some of the South when it comes to that.

I have a few family members who own multiple guns for hunting. I have many friends who are cops or former cops. I know that people have guns, and that doesn't bother me. I just don't see a point for bringing your guns out in public just because.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-18-2017, 11:37 AM
 
19,366 posts, read 18,511,507 times
Reputation: 23436
Quote:
Originally Posted by msulinski View Post
You do need an FID card to purchase a gun in NJ.
You said that you don't need a FID to buy a long gun or ammunition for it. I was wondering why Kracer said that someone traveling to the location where they're going to hunt needs one. That doesn't make sense to me. He assumes that the person isn't using a rifle?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2017, 12:10 PM
 
19,366 posts, read 18,511,507 times
Reputation: 23436
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415 View Post
I didn't say people don't own guns or don't bring them out for a specific purpose. I'm talking about open or concealed carry and THAT type of gun culture. I think the person I responded to was talking about carrying. We are nothing like some of the South when it comes to that.

I have a few family members who own multiple guns for hunting. I have many friends who are cops or former cops. I know that people have guns, and that doesn't bother me. I just don't see a point for bringing your guns out in public just because.
Oh, OK. I've lived in a couple of states where open carry was legal, but I never saw a gun on anyone's hip. It's not the polite thing to do. Open carry usually meant that you weren't going to get nailed by the police for transporting it from point A to B.

I'm from PA, so gun stuff seems normal to me. My dad never owned a gun, but both of my brothers did. One used to hunt. No one was afraid to talk about them. I think that's what's different in New Jersey.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2017, 01:04 PM
 
1,750 posts, read 1,150,123 times
Reputation: 1406
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415 View Post
Meh. We truly don't have a gun culture and I like it that way. I can't imagine walking into a fast food place or museum or park or something and seeing some guy openly carrying. It's just weird and unnecessary to me.

The only purpose I can see for having guns, personally, is for protection in my own home or on my property. I do wish NJ wasn't so strict on those cases. I feel like I should be able to shoot and kill an intruder if I feel threatened, whether his or her intention was to just rob me (as if that's not a big deal) or kill me. But as far as openly carrying or even concealed carrying... why? I don't get it. But then again, like I said, we don't have that "gun culture" so it makes sense that I don't get it. Are there instances where lives could be saved thanks to open/concealed carry? Sure, but there are also countless ways that could go wrong and more people could get hurt. Outside the cities, a lot of NJ tends to be extremely safe and I really see no need for citizens to walk around carrying. I do recall a NJ resident who moved to NC telling us here on CD that he feels the need to carry while walking his dog where he lives. I have never felt that need, or felt unsafe just walking around my suburban neighborhood. IIRC a lot of people here agreed. Different cultures, I guess, different places.

I also think that in those instances you cited, the guy going from ME to TX and the guy whose flight landed here instead of elsewhere, we also shouldn't be so strict. Especially knowing how many illegal guns we have in the hands of gangs in our cities. Let's focus our efforts on stopping those bag guys and taking the guns from their hands rather than arresting the people who basically accidentally bring their guns here as they're traveling through, unaware of the laws (though people should always be aware of the laws in each state they'll be traveling to when it comes to guns).
Obviously you don't "get it".

First of all it's not up to you to decide what another person's needs may be. Just as it's not up to me to decide what your needs are as long as you're not out committing crimes. I wasn't aware that criminal acts only occur within one's own home or property and never occur while out in public? A bit naive aren't you?

I now live in Arizona where law abiding people* can freely exercise their 2nd Amendment rights without any governmental interference. Permits are not required for either concealed or open carry while out in public. But you know what? People are not just blowing each other away over stupid little incidents such as traffic altercations or accidentally bumping into each other while going about their daily business as many would have you believe. Conditioned and indoctrinated by Hollywood, I guess?

Although I don't open carry for strategic purposes, when I see someone openly carrying a sidearm I thank God I live in a free state that upholds all of our constitutional rights and not just a select few for a select few. States such as New York and New Jersey where only a select few are allowed to carry a handgun outside their home for self defense purposes. Those who are coincidentally in favor of restrictive gun laws by the way. Why their lives are more important than the common individual is beyond me? Buncha' self righteous hypocrites if you ask me.

A gun is an inanimate object and not capable of acting out on it's own. There are God only knows how many other inanimate objects that can cause great harm or death that are not as subject to such scrutiny and regulations. The whole issue with gun control laws is that good people don't need 'em while bad people don't follow 'em. Gun control is all about control, pure and simple. It's the difference between being a subject and a free person. The soul reason for the 2nd Amendment in the first place.

We already have enough laws that address the criminal and negligent use of firearms. Along with laws that address every criminal act imaginable, criminal penalties intact. Passing laws that criminalize the possession of one's lawfully held property only serve to reward the guilty while punishing the innocent as the guilty will never comply. People who lawfully carry their firearms are not a threat to anyone except those that would do them harm and just want to be left the hell alone.

Most of these laws such as New York's "Safe Act" are passed for political retribution. What better way to punish your political enemies than to criminalize their possessions and or beliefs? Which is exactly what New York's "Safe Act" accomplished as intended. New York's Gov. Cuomo even boasted after the "Safe Act" was passed that: "people that do not think like him are not welcome in New York".

*There is a big difference between those who can legally carry/possess a firearm and those who can't. Those with criminal records, substance abusers and those with mental instability are already prohibited by both state and federal laws from possessing firearms. You can read Form 4473 which lists all of the legal conditions that are required. Any violation is a criminal act. It is also illegal to sell a firearm to anyone who has a criminal record or to an out of state resident with one condition. An out of state resident may purchase the firearm outside of their legal residence but must have it shipped to a federally licensed dealer within their home state. Where all the proper paperwork and requirements must be met according to that state's firearms laws.

Last edited by Ex New Yorker; 06-18-2017 at 01:48 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2017, 08:31 PM
 
10,756 posts, read 8,118,139 times
Reputation: 13500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex New Yorker View Post
Obviously you don't "get it".

First of all it's not up to you to decide what another person's needs may be. Just as it's not up to me to decide what your needs are as long as you're not out committing crimes. I wasn't aware that criminal acts only occur within one's own home or property and never occur while out in public? A bit naive aren't you?

I now live in Arizona where law abiding people* can freely exercise their 2nd Amendment rights without any governmental interference. Permits are not required for either concealed or open carry while out in public. But you know what? People are not just blowing each other away over stupid little incidents such as traffic altercations or accidentally bumping into each other while going about their daily business as many would have you believe. Conditioned and indoctrinated by Hollywood, I guess?

Although I don't open carry for strategic purposes, when I see someone openly carrying a sidearm I thank God I live in a free state that upholds all of our constitutional rights and not just a select few for a select few. States such as New York and New Jersey where only a select few are allowed to carry a handgun outside their home for self defense purposes. Those who are coincidentally in favor of restrictive gun laws by the way. Why their lives are more important than the common individual is beyond me? Buncha' self righteous hypocrites if you ask me.

A gun is an inanimate object and not capable of acting out on it's own. There are God only knows how many other inanimate objects that can cause great harm or death that are not as subject to such scrutiny and regulations. The whole issue with gun control laws is that good people don't need 'em while bad people don't follow 'em. Gun control is all about control, pure and simple. It's the difference between being a subject and a free person. The soul reason for the 2nd Amendment in the first place.

We already have enough laws that address the criminal and negligent use of firearms. Along with laws that address every criminal act imaginable, criminal penalties intact. Passing laws that criminalize the possession of one's lawfully held property only serve to reward the guilty while punishing the innocent as the guilty will never comply. People who lawfully carry their firearms are not a threat to anyone except those that would do them harm and just want to be left the hell alone.

Most of these laws such as New York's "Safe Act" are passed for political retribution. What better way to punish your political enemies than to criminalize their possessions and or beliefs? Which is exactly what New York's "Safe Act" accomplished as intended. New York's Gov. Cuomo even boasted after the "Safe Act" was passed that: "people that do not think like him are not welcome in New York".

*There is a big difference between those who can legally carry/possess a firearm and those who can't. Those with criminal records, substance abusers and those with mental instability are already prohibited by both state and federal laws from possessing firearms. You can read Form 4473 which lists all of the legal conditions that are required. Any violation is a criminal act. It is also illegal to sell a firearm to anyone who has a criminal record or to an out of state resident with one condition. An out of state resident may purchase the firearm outside of their legal residence but must have it shipped to a federally licensed dealer within their home state. Where all the proper paperwork and requirements must be met according to that state's firearms laws.
Yes, I said I don't get it. I don't get it. Period.

It's interesting you assume I'm afraid of guns or those who legally carry and use them. I also did not insinuate that I assume that anyone who legally carries in other states starts "blowing each other away" like in Hollywood. Don't talk to me like I'm an idiot without a basis for it.

My only issue, which I made quite clear, is that I don't see a point to open or even concealed carry out in public. If one is going somewhere to use a gun for a specific purpose - to hunt or go to a shooting range or something - then by all means transport it. How else will you use it if you can't take it with you? I don't think it is necessary at all to carry otherwise - and I'm entitled to that opinion without a response like yours talking down to me, frankly. I have not talked down to anyone here or taken issue with their opinions, I expect the same courtesy.

I am not naive at all. I guess I'm lucky to live in a very safe area. I never feel like I may possibly need a gun to defend myself. I understand it may be different elsewhere, but HERE, where I am, this is how it is. I, and basically everyone else, walk around my suburban area and other suburban areas without carrying and we are totally fine. Violent crime is extremely rare. And using guns is not a proportional response to property crime, which is more common than violent crime.

Your tone here is very interesting. Very defensive, and for what? Clearly we just disagree. That's fine.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2017, 10:59 PM
 
1,750 posts, read 1,150,123 times
Reputation: 1406
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415 View Post
Yes, I said I don't get it. I don't get it. Period.

It's interesting you assume I'm afraid of guns or those who legally carry and use them. I also did not insinuate that I assume that anyone who legally carries in other states starts "blowing each other away" like in Hollywood. Don't talk to me like I'm an idiot without a basis for it.

My only issue, which I made quite clear, is that I don't see a point to open or even concealed carry out in public. If one is going somewhere to use a gun for a specific purpose - to hunt or go to a shooting range or something - then by all means transport it. How else will you use it if you can't take it with you? I don't think it is necessary at all to carry otherwise - and I'm entitled to that opinion without a response like yours talking down to me, frankly. I have not talked down to anyone here or taken issue with their opinions, I expect the same courtesy.

I am not naive at all. I guess I'm lucky to live in a very safe area. I never feel like I may possibly need a gun to defend myself. I understand it may be different elsewhere, but HERE, where I am, this is how it is. I, and basically everyone else, walk around my suburban area and other suburban areas without carrying and we are totally fine. Violent crime is extremely rare. And using guns is not a proportional response to property crime, which is more common than violent crime.

Your tone here is very interesting. Very defensive, and for what? Clearly we just disagree. That's fine.
Obviously you do indeed have this inordinate fear of law abiding people being allowed to legally carry their firearms for self defense while out and about in public. Otherwise you wouldn't have any problems with it. Period.

You probably have more of a chance of being struck by lightning or getting hit by a car than being shot by someone who is lawfully carrying a handgun in public. Besides I've never stated that using a gun should be the proper response to minor and or property crimes. Your just putting words in my mouth, just as you are accusing me of doing to you. Your tone too is very defensive and for what?

A gun can only be used as a last resort if your life or that of another innocent person is in imminent danger. At least that's how the law sees it. Even where I am in gun friendly Arizona. To do so otherwise and you will be charged with murder as it should be. Minor and or property crimes are not punishable by death.

Carrying a gun for personal self defense is indeed a valid and specific purpose. The ability to defend one's life from a violent criminal attack is certainly more valid than hunting or target shooting. As the old cliche goes: "When seconds count the police are only minutes away".

As rare as violent crime may be and contrary to your opinion anyone, anywhere and at any time can fall victim to a violent crime even in your own safe little haven. My aunt at 80 years old once had the crap beat out of her as she was walking home from my uncle's funeral in what she had always assumed was her safe little haven. House fires are rare too, but does that mean you should not have a fire extinguisher and smoke detectors? Or wear a seat belt while driving or a life preserver while boating?

Whether you see a point in open or concealed carry is irrelevant. Many people do and they have every valid reason for doing so. They are just as valid as yours if not more so. Besides who appointed you as arbiter of what people should or should not be allowed to do? Especially when they are not in violation of or are breaking any laws. Whether I choose to legally carry a gun or not is really none of your business. It's my choice to make and not yours. That's where we differ as I am not telling or suggesting what you should or should not do. If that's being defensive, well tough.

Yes you are entitled to your opinions, just as I am mine. I tried to present a sound rational argument supporting my positions as opposed to yours. You're only argument is: "Yes, I said I don't get it. I don't get it. Period." That's all you've got. If my opinions make you feel like an idiot, well than so be it. That was not my intention. Too bad you take this all too personally.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2017, 11:33 PM
 
19,366 posts, read 18,511,507 times
Reputation: 23436
My husband was a Ranger and a Green Beret. Not my topic of choice. He landed a job in NJ 25 years ago, and we moved there. It went well enough for a while. Too many gun restrictions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2017, 06:56 AM
 
36 posts, read 13,685 times
Reputation: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex New Yorker View Post
I now live in Arizona where law abiding people* can freely exercise their 2nd Amendment rights without any governmental interference. Permits are not required for either concealed or open carry while out in public. But you know what? People are not just blowing each other away over stupid little incidents such as traffic altercations or accidentally bumping into each other while going about their daily business as many would have you believe. Conditioned and indoctrinated by Hollywood, I guess?

This is the 2nd amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Why is it that many people can't read? There is no federal right for an individual to carry a gun. A well regulated Militia would be the national guard or state police in today's terms.

You can't cut out the restricting part of the law and make it apply in all cases.
If the law said "in self defense, a person has the right to injure another' that doesn't give 'a person the right to injure another' in the general sense.

That said, I'm happy there are highly restrictive gun laws in the dense areas of NYC, NJ, MA, etc. Worldwide most countries restrict gun laws and murders tend to decrease. A gun isn't the only way to kill/hurt someone, but it's one of the easiest; and if you don't trust other's from acting safe and rationally, what makes you think you'll be safer when they have firepower (even if you also have firepower). Running away from a knife is alot easier than running away from a gun. killing/injuring 10 people with a knife is incredibly difficult, but it happens with a gun all the time.

States with looser gun laws in this country are not any safer statistically than the liberal areas of the country.

Also, why are you okay with restricting gun ownership on criminals, or mentally unstable people? Why have you ignored 'well regulated militia' but added 'except criminals and categories i don't like'
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2017, 07:06 AM
 
Location: Springfield, NJ
272 posts, read 440,471 times
Reputation: 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerania View Post
You said that you don't need a FID to buy a long gun or ammunition for it. I was wondering why Kracer said that someone traveling to the location where they're going to hunt needs one. That doesn't make sense to me. He assumes that the person isn't using a rifle?
I wrote that you can purchase long gun ammunition without the FID card. You still need it for the gun.You do need the FID card for pistol ammunition. As for transporting the guns, I don't believe you need an FID card (with matching address) to transport the guns, but I am not certain on that one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2017, 08:55 AM
 
225 posts, read 108,321 times
Reputation: 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by rons1 View Post
This is the 2nd amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Why is it that many people can't read? There is no federal right for an individual to carry a gun. A well regulated Militia would be the national guard or state police in today's terms.

You can't cut out the restricting part of the law and make it apply in all cases.
If the law said "in self defense, a person has the right to injure another' that doesn't give 'a person the right to injure another' in the general sense.

That said, I'm happy there are highly restrictive gun laws in the dense areas of NYC, NJ, MA, etc. Worldwide most countries restrict gun laws and murders tend to decrease. A gun isn't the only way to kill/hurt someone, but it's one of the easiest; and if you don't trust other's from acting safe and rationally, what makes you think you'll be safer when they have firepower (even if you also have firepower). Running away from a knife is alot easier than running away from a gun. killing/injuring 10 people with a knife is incredibly difficult, but it happens with a gun all the time.

States with looser gun laws in this country are not any safer statistically than the liberal areas of the country.

Also, why are you okay with restricting gun ownership on criminals, or mentally unstable people? Why have you ignored 'well regulated militia' but added 'except criminals and categories i don't like'
I don't get why gun advocates don't understand this. The second amendment was drafted in an age where we didn't have the organized law enforcement and militaries we had to today. We also didn't have means of rapid transportation, which means people in the frontier were truly on their own for self-preservation because there was no 911 to call for help. It was drafted in an age where weapons consisted of single shot muskets and pistols that you had to undertake a rather complicated procedure to reload after every shot. So they weren't exactly concerned about nut jobs shooting up schools and movie theaters resulting in mass casualties. If the framers could have foreseen automatic assault weapons with exchangeable 30 round clips, I'm fairly certain the 2nd amendment would have been drafted very differently. Lastly, there is nothing in the constitution preventing the state from regulating how and when people may purchase and use arms. If it was an absolute right, then criminals and the mentally insane could have them too without restriction. I'm pretty sure no one agrees that should be the case.

The constitution is a product of its time, which is why its interpretation has to be amended with the times. I would remind all the strict constitutional constructionists out there that the original text of this same document states that African-Americans are not to be counted as full humans. That alone should serve as sufficient proof that it's an inherently flawed document that was a product of its Era and was crafted by a homogeneous group of individuals who weren't exactly representing the diversity or interests of all people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Jersey

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top