NY Lawmakers Want Five Year Handgun Licenses

Apr 24, 2009 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: WETM-TV Elmira

But a downstate Assemblywoman and Senator want to change that. Because of the shootings in Binghamton , they're pushing for five year gun licenses.

Comments
1 - 20 of 32 Comments Last updated Jan 14, 2013
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Bruce V

Athens, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Apr 24, 2009
 
Snippets from the article:

"Tanisha doesn't think five year handgun licenses would have prevented what happened to her husband.

But she says she's for stronger gun laws.

"I believe legislation could help. I believe it could only help, if it's going to make it harder for people to have guns," Says Tanisha Logan-Davis, Widow."

She said it "it's going to make it harder for people to have guns" And that is what "reasonable restrictions" are all about, MAKING THINGS HARDER TO EXERCISE YOUR RIGHTS.

"The Binghamton Police Chief agrees the new legislation could only help." Based on what? Examine the handgun permit process described in the article, as if it isn't already difficult to obtain one.

“Insults are not counter points”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Apr 24, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fleet Admiral Isoruko Yamamoto, Japan's commander-in-chief of the Combined Fleet in WWII understood when he said, "I would never invade the United States. There would be a gun behind every blade of grass." Gun-Free Safe Zones is an oxymoron. Gun-Free Zones are killing fields. While you will not stop every idiot from doing what his deranged mind sets out to do, by eliminating these death zones you will prevent most. These mass murderers are cowards and pick their targets based on vulnerabilities. That's why you never here of a killing spree at gun shows, 2A rallies, or gun ranges where most everyone is armed.

That being said, more and stricter procedures will not work. Honest people are the ones that apply for concealed carry and are very unlikely to become a mass murderer. I say unlikely because of Jiverly Wong, but would renewing every five years have stopped his rampage? Likely not. Would even the thought that the retirement home he shot up was occupied by armed residents and nurses have made him reconsider? Very likely. After all, it kept Yamamoto off American soil and he had a whole fleet at his disposal.
2true

Freeport, ME

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Apr 24, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

IRAQ must be the safest place on earth because everyone there has guns and they take their guns with them everywhere.
They have tons of assault weapons, it sure helped them a lot when we invaded didn't it?

Would the average citizen fare any better against our government than the average Iraqi did against our government?
They have the same or better weapons.
Michael Ejercito

Long Beach, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Apr 24, 2009
 
2true wrote:
IRAQ must be the safest place on earth because everyone there has guns and they take their guns with them everywhere.
They have tons of assault weapons, it sure helped them a lot when we invaded didn't it?
Would the average citizen fare any better against our government than the average Iraqi did against our government?
They have the same or better weapons.
So why are we losing in Iraq, according to the detractors of Operation Iraqi Freedom?
Michael Ejercito

Long Beach, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Apr 24, 2009
 
Bruce V wrote:
Snippets from the article:
"Tanisha doesn't think five year handgun licenses would have prevented what happened to her husband.
But she says she's for stronger gun laws.
"I believe legislation could help. I believe it could only help, if it's going to make it harder for people to have guns," Says Tanisha Logan-Davis, Widow."
She said it "it's going to make it harder for people to have guns" And that is what "reasonable restrictions" are all about, MAKING THINGS HARDER TO EXERCISE YOUR RIGHTS.
"The Binghamton Police Chief agrees the new legislation could only help." Based on what? Examine the handgun permit process described in the article, as if it isn't already difficult to obtain one.
How would those laws make it harder for the NYPD to gun down unarmed black men like Amadou Diallo, Patrick Dorismond, and Sean Bell?
Bruce V

Athens, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Apr 24, 2009
 
Michael Ejercito wrote:
<quoted text>
How would those laws make it harder for the NYPD to gun down unarmed black men like Amadou Diallo, Patrick Dorismond, and Sean Bell?
The less power the citizen has, the more power the government and police have.

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Apr 24, 2009
 
Michael Ejercito wrote:
<quoted text>
How would those laws make it harder for the NYPD to gun down unarmed black men like Amadou Diallo, Patrick Dorismond, and Sean Bell?
The greatest fear a free man should have is a police state.

“Insults are not counter points”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Apr 24, 2009
 
Michael Ejercito wrote:
<quoted text>
How would those laws make it harder for the NYPD to gun down unarmed black men like Amadou Diallo, Patrick Dorismond, and Sean Bell?
I don't know the details of cases to which you refer, but in short, it wouldn't. The laws would have only affected these three men. Their ability to carry firearms for self-defense would be made more difficult and possibly financially prohibitive. What I do know is that NYC already has some of the most stringent gun laws in the nation and those laws have done little, if anything, to curb the violence. This is the basic argument against gun control, fewer guns does not equal less crime. Fewer guns only equal more potential victims unable to defend themselves against armed attackers.

“Insults are not counter points”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Apr 24, 2009
 
I know all you guys are going to jump on the "basic argument" comment. What I mean is as it applies to this particular area of conversation. Not to the meaning behind the Second Amendment in general, the whole defending ourselves against a tyrannical government and defense of the Union against foreign invaders.
Bruce V

Athens, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Apr 24, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

GunClinger wrote:
I know all you guys are going to jump on the "basic argument" comment. What I mean is as it applies to this particular area of conversation. Not to the meaning behind the Second Amendment in general, the whole defending ourselves against a tyrannical government and defense of the Union against foreign invaders.
Sadly, in today's world,it appears our RIGHTS are more in jeopardy from our own government than from foreign invaders.
foo

Long Beach, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Apr 24, 2009
 
2true wrote:
IRAQ must be the safest place on earth because everyone there has guns and they take their guns with them everywhere.
They have tons of assault weapons, it sure helped them a lot when we invaded didn't it?
Would the average citizen fare any better against our government than the average Iraqi did against our government?
They have the same or better weapons.
Our military hardware and training is the best in the world. The military (most of them anyway) would not attack their fellow Americans.

Since: Mar 09

The Left Coast

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Apr 24, 2009
 
We will never convince those that don't believe in the Consitution, they run soley on emotions and not facts. The article states "The hope is to take guns out of the wrong hands and prevent more innocent lives from being lost" Who decides what are the wrong hands, above and beyond our current laws? Anybody who has ever met with a counselor, they should not have a gun. Anybody from a foreign country, they shouldn't have a gun. Maybe we could have an 'opt out' format. The good people could opt out and we can make a law that would require the bad people to opt in.
foo

Davenport, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Apr 24, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bruce V wrote:
<quoted text>
Sadly, in today's world,it appears our RIGHTS are more in jeopardy from our own government than from foreign invaders.
America cannot be destroyed from the outside, only from within.

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Apr 24, 2009
 
foo wrote:
<quoted text>
America cannot be destroyed from the outside, only from within.
This is the most correct commentary one can make on the American way of life.

Attack America and we come together , left to our own devices and we wear down the rock of liberty.

Thanks for the reminder , "foo".
Seen It Before

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Apr 24, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

New York has tough gun laws to begin with. Wong is only about the 3rd permit holder that I can think of in the last 20 yrs or so that has used their registered guns for murder. All honest citizens suffer for the actions of a few.
Oregon Is Disgusting

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Apr 26, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

GunClinger wrote:
Fleet Admiral Isoruko Yamamoto, Japan's commander-in-chief of the Combined Fleet in WWII understood when he said, "I would never invade the United States. There would be a gun behind every blade of grass." Gun-Free Safe Zones is an oxymoron. Gun-Free Zones are killing fields. While you will not stop every idiot from doing what his deranged mind sets out to do, by eliminating these death zones you will prevent most. These mass murderers are cowards and pick their targets based on vulnerabilities. That's why you never here of a killing spree at gun shows, 2A rallies, or gun ranges where most everyone is armed.
That being said, more and stricter procedures will not work. Honest people are the ones that apply for concealed carry and are very unlikely to become a mass murderer. I say unlikely because of Jiverly Wong, but would renewing every five years have stopped his rampage? Likely not. Would even the thought that the retirement home he shot up was occupied by armed residents and nurses have made him reconsider? Very likely. After all, it kept Yamamoto off American soil and he had a whole fleet at his disposal.
Then by your reasoning every single person in the USA should be bristling with firearms every hour of every day. In this way there would be, by your reasoning, zero crime.

If children were armed no one would dare abuse them. If toddlers were armed no one would dare try and steal them. If bank tellers were armed no one would ever steal from a bank. If all drivers of cars were armed no one would ever hijack a car.

So, obviously, the gun solution is to arm every single person to the teeth. Then we will have a completely peaceful society.

Isn't that what you want?
Oregon Is Disgusting

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Apr 26, 2009
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Bruce V wrote:
<quoted text>
Sadly, in today's world,it appears our RIGHTS are more in jeopardy from our own government than from foreign invaders.
So does that mean you are not going to defend the government against foreign invaders? Just how many enemies do you have and just how paranoid are you?

This government is a great deal less thuggish than the last one and yet you voted for the last one and against this one.

“Insults are not counter points”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Apr 27, 2009
 
Oregon Is Disgusting wrote:
<quoted text>
Then by your reasoning every single person in the USA should be bristling with firearms every hour of every day. In this way there would be, by your reasoning, zero crime.
If children were armed no one would dare abuse them. If toddlers were armed no one would dare try and steal them. If bank tellers were armed no one would ever steal from a bank. If all drivers of cars were armed no one would ever hijack a car.
So, obviously, the gun solution is to arm every single person to the teeth. Then we will have a completely peaceful society.
Isn't that what you want?
Yeah. That pretty much sums it up.
Bruce V

Athens, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Apr 27, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Oregon Is Disgusting wrote:
<quoted text>
So does that mean you are not going to defend the government against foreign invaders? Just how many enemies do you have and just how paranoid are you?
This government is a great deal less thuggish than the last one and yet you voted for the last one and against this one.
"So does that mean you are not going to defend the government against foreign invaders?" No, I will defend my country from socialist from Canada or anywhere else.

You have shattered my illusion, I always thought we had a secret ballot here in America; just who was it that told you how I voted?
Oregon Is Disgusting

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Apr 30, 2009
 
GunClinger wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah. That pretty much sums it up.
OK then that's fine by me.

It's the hypocrites who want just the gun laws THEY want who irk me.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••