Gun Control Debate - Wurtsboro, NY

Discuss the national Gun Control debate in Wurtsboro, NY.

Would you support a ban on handguns?

Wurtsboro opposes
Oppose
 
4
Support
 
1

Vote now in Wurtsboro:

Comments
1 - 20 of 32 Comments Last updated -
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Stan

Monroe, NY

#1 Sep 30, 2010
Not one bit....thats the beginning of the end.
kristine huffnagel

Kingston, NY

#2 Oct 6, 2010
if you guys ban this... then there would be a better chance of staying a live........its better to be safe than sorry
freedom1776

Farmingdale, NY

#3 Oct 11, 2010
2nd amendment

“Just the FACTS!”

Since: Apr 10

Ellenville, NY

#4 Oct 12, 2010
freedom1776 wrote:
2nd amendment
Sorry, but "2nd amendment" is NOT an answer! The 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with this question! For proof, and other information that might actually educate you on this, go to http://kryo.com/2ndAmen/

As for this particular question, it's bogus. Besides being impractical to enforce, it is cast in absolutist terms that doesn't allow for a range of options. Certain weapons can, and should always, be "banned" from certain places and circumstances (courtrooms, legislatures, where a political assassination could occur, etc.), and be restricted to disallow certain persons from possessing or carrying them (felons, mentally incompetent, minors, those under legal restraint due to domestic violence or history of threats, etc.). Private businesses can "ban" them from their premises, whether workplaces or public settings such as bars. And states and municipalities, under the inherent police powers of the 10th Amendment, can REGULATE possession and use of ALL weapons within their jurisdiction, based on their particular concerns, and the WILL of the PEOPLE of that polity; regulation is NOT the same as "infringement," and the 2nd Amendment has NEVER limited the ability of state or local governments to establish regulations that limit or set requirements regarding the possession, transport, or use of any class of weapon, or who may do so. Even the current revisionist Supreme Court ruling that pulls "an individual right to own and possess firearms" out of thin air (it ISN'T IN the Constitution, or in the writings and debates of the Founding era!), doesn't refute that, and still allows for "reasonable regulation," as the Constitution is NOT a suicide pact of absolutes!
Dave from Pike

Perry, NY

#5 Oct 12, 2010
Krulick wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but "2nd amendment" is NOT an answer! The 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with this question! For proof, and other information that might actually educate you on this, go to http://kryo.com/2ndAmen/
As for this particular question, it's bogus. Besides being impractical to enforce, it is cast in absolutist terms that doesn't allow for a range of options. Certain weapons can, and should always, be "banned" from certain places and circumstances (courtrooms, legislatures, where a political assassination could occur, etc.), and be restricted to disallow certain persons from possessing or carrying them (felons, mentally incompetent, minors, those under legal restraint due to domestic violence or history of threats, etc.). Private businesses can "ban" them from their premises, whether workplaces or public settings such as bars. And states and municipalities, under the inherent police powers of the 10th Amendment, can REGULATE possession and use of ALL weapons within their jurisdiction, based on their particular concerns, and the WILL of the PEOPLE of that polity; regulation is NOT the same as "infringement," and the 2nd Amendment has NEVER limited the ability of state or local governments to establish regulations that limit or set requirements regarding the possession, transport, or use of any class of weapon, or who may do so. Even the current revisionist Supreme Court ruling that pulls "an individual right to own and possess firearms" out of thin air (it ISN'T IN the Constitution, or in the writings and debates of the Founding era!), doesn't refute that, and still allows for "reasonable regulation," as the Constitution is NOT a suicide pact of absolutes!
Gee, Krulick, I am glad you set us all straight on all that Second Amendment stuff. I was worried that the 10,000 rounds 37 long arms I have stored away for threats like you might be actually legal.

Get real, schmuck. We are supposed to believe YOU on this? And who might you be, certainly none of the dozens of legal scholars who have pondered this question over the decades.

You are vomiting the George Soros brand of international gun control and the deceptions put forth by their ilk. Nice try, commie-man. Go to Cuba where you might be welcomed.
Dave from Pike

Perry, NY

#6 Oct 12, 2010
OK, Krulick, maybe I was a little tough on ya...I see you are a real and engaged person and try to do well for your local government, so I somewhat reluctantly retract the commie and Cuba part, although I would not be surprised to learn you have actually been there.

But understand this, Sir: You are perceived to be as lartge a part of the Second Amendment problem as is Charles Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, George Soros, or Rebecca Peters, or those two next to worthless jurists recently appointed to the supreme court.

So, go on and on about how green you are and all that stuff, but at the end of the day you will be looked upon as a left-leaning liberal Democrat of a slightly different stripe. That is all.

Oh, I have actually read many of those founding documents you refer to and they say exactly what we think they say...that arms are the providence of the people for the obvious reason that governments, even theirs, can not and could not be trusted and might have to be removed...by the people who put them in place. Read on, Pal, you might get it one of these days.

Oh, I think I'll send in for my NRA life membership. Yep, I'll cash in some of them there food stamps I saved from '76.

“Just the FACTS!”

Since: Apr 10

Ellenville, NY

#7 Oct 12, 2010
Your snarky reply was just a knee-jerk reaction that shows little thought, and perhaps less actual knowledge. I bet you didn't notice that on the Ellenville forum for this question, I OPPOSED a handgun ban. It might also surprise you to know I have a NY pistol permit, and not just for the hell of it. It might also surprise you to know that I possess more than adequate firepower to dissuade know-nothing knuckle-dragger "threats" like you from acting out on your ignorance.

Let's review: First, READ what I posted at the available website BEFORE thinking you KNOW what I said! It actually WILL set you straight on "that Second Amendment stuff" if you actually let go of your pre-conceived notions, or the lies you've swallowed, and, instead, follow the FACTS of the issue as I've laid them out, thoroughly and logically!

Whether the firearms you possess ARE actually legal has NOTHING to do with the 2nd Amendment! If you are a resident of NYS, then it's a matter of the NYS constitution, and applicable LOCAL laws, and that you haven't violated those FEDERAL laws that, in spite of the NRA and some rogue SCotUS justices, REMAIN on the books!

Calling me a schmuck doesn't make me one, nor refute my argument. It simply shows that you are letting emotion overrule logic and evidence. NO debate points there, pal.

I "might be" someone who has spent YEARS studying and writing on the issue of the 2nd Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights, and not just swallowing the NRA propaganda, put out by THEIR "legal (pseudo-)scholars" who simply ignore the FACTS that exist, and twist the rest, or use bogus "evidence," including hoax or misread or mischaracterized quotes. Besides, two-hundred-plus-years of legal RULINGS based on actual KNOWLEDGE of what the authors of the 2nd Amendment MEANT, plus actual historians and legal experts NOT in the pockets of the NRA, paint a different story than YOU likely believe.

I said NOTHING about "gun control" or have anything to do with "George Soros" (why bring up THAT bogeyman -- for whom, as a hedge fund billionaire, I only have contempt -- other than guilt by an association I don't have with him?); I merely explained how the LAWS actually now work!

I'm not a "commie" and I haven't been to Cuba. Your attempts at smearing, red-baiting, and avoiding the actual things I SAID are not refutation, just ad hominem spew. When you can engage in a relevant response based on actual logic or evidence, let us know.

What YOU "perceive" is irrelevant, if based on knee-jerk ignorance and trotting out the names of political jokers and jerks I neither respect nor support. They are ignorant of the FACTS in their own way, as you are in yours.

The current majority on the court is simply ignorant of two hundred years of legal precedent and stare decisis, or else they simply chose to ignore them for cynical political expediency, being rogue activist judges who bow to NRA lies and nonsense.

I'm not a "liberal Democrat" and I have mostly contempt for their wishy-washy, spineless ways. I'm FAR more radical than that, being extremely green, and in many areas, extremely libertarian. James Madison and I are pretty much on the same page; but if YOU haven't really read him, then you wouldn't know what I was talking about.

Just pulling what you BELIEVE to be what THEY said, out of context and paraphrased, isn't refutation either. Cite an ACTUAL relevant quote, tie it to the writing, debates, and passage of the 2nd Amendment, and maybe I'll take YOU seriously, Pal.

The NRA is bunk. They monger fear to get suckers like YOU to give them dough, based on false premises and "scary bogeymen" like Schumer and Pelosi. Most of the "quotes" on their front page are proven hoaxes or out-of-context misrepresentations of what their authors actually MEANT. READ my posted material and you might actually learn something! But I doubt it, because you already "know" all there is to know about all this, right?
The Sane One

Wappingers Falls, NY

#8 Jan 29, 2013
It gets SO tiring listening to people whine about guns that have no experience with guns. All they see is TV and movies and think it's how it is. It's no wonder these people make moronic decisions in other aspects of their lives.

The gun haters think everyone will be safer. This could not be further from the truth. Banning guns would afford criminals all that they need to pursue their craft.
Real

United States

#9 Jan 29, 2013
Krulick wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but "2nd amendment" is NOT an answer! The 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with this question! For proof, and other information that might actually educate you on this, go to http://kryo.com/2ndAmen/
As for this particular question, it's bogus. Besides being impractical to enforce, it is cast in absolutist terms that doesn't allow for a range of options. Certain weapons can, and should always, be "banned" from certain places and circumstances (courtrooms, legislatures, where a political assassination could occur, etc.), and be restricted to disallow certain persons from possessing or carrying them (felons, mentally incompetent, minors, those under legal restraint due to domestic violence or history of threats, etc.). Private businesses can "ban" them from their premises, whether workplaces or public settings such as bars. And states and municipalities, under the inherent police powers of the 10th Amendment, can REGULATE possession and use of ALL weapons within their jurisdiction, based on their particular concerns, and the WILL of the PEOPLE of that polity; regulation is NOT the same as "infringement," and the 2nd Amendment has NEVER limited the ability of state or local governments to establish regulations that limit or set requirements regarding the possession, transport, or use of any class of weapon, or who may do so. Even the current revisionist Supreme Court ruling that pulls "an individual right to own and possess firearms" out of thin air (it ISN'T IN the Constitution, or in the writings and debates of the Founding era!), doesn't refute that, and still allows for "reasonable regulation," as the Constitution is NOT a suicide pact of absolutes!
Um, yes, kind of like abortion isn't in the constitution either. Just pulled out of the same "thin air".
The QUICK FIX IT TEAM

Chicago, IL

#10 Mar 5, 2013
Krulick got taken to the woodshed over the 2nd Amendment. He's still smarting over it.

“Just the FACTS!”

Since: Apr 10

Ellenville, NY

#11 Mar 5, 2013
The QUICK FIX IT TEAM wrote:
Krulick got taken to the woodshed over the 2nd Amendment. He's still smarting over it.
What the bleep are you talkin' about? I know of no such thing happening; care to substantiate your blatant assertion and how you can ken my frame of mind over the internet?
NYStateOfMind

New York, NY

#12 Apr 5, 2013
KKKrulick knows nothign about the 2nd Amendment.
He only knows how to obfuscate and engage in sophistry.

“Just the FACTS!”

Since: Apr 10

Ellenville, NY

#13 Apr 5, 2013
NYStateOfMind wrote:
KKKrulick knows nothign about the 2nd Amendment.
He only knows how to obfuscate and engage in sophistry.
Nothign? Well, why don't you prove your blatant assertion? Anyone who wants to see what I DO know on the subject can go and investigate themselves at http://kryo.com/2ndAmen/
Minter

La Vista, NE

#14 Apr 18, 2013
Krulick wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothign? Well, why don't you prove your blatant assertion? Anyone who wants to see what I DO know on the subject can go and investigate themselves at http://kryo.com/2ndAmen/
That site has already been debunked.

“Just the FACTS!”

Since: Apr 10

Ellenville, NY

#15 Apr 18, 2013
Minter wrote:
<quoted text>That site has already been debunked.
Why? Because you merely blatantly assert so? WHO has "debunked" it? HOW? Your "claim" is "debunked" because I say so! There! We're even!

Why don't you show some PROOF for your claim?!! WHO debunked ANYTHING I posted? HOW? Show ONE example of anyone refuting anything I said, and maybe we'll take you seriously.
Besara

Des Moines, IA

#16 Apr 19, 2013
Minter wrote:
<quoted text>That site has already been debunked.
Yup, it's amazing how little he really knows and winds up making a fool of himself. But hey, it's his website.

“Just the FACTS!”

Since: Apr 10

Ellenville, NY

#17 Apr 19, 2013
Besara wrote:
<quoted text>Yup, it's amazing how little he really knows and winds up making a fool of himself. But hey, it's his website.
Again, just more whistling past the graveyard in the dark! It's amazing how easy it is to make such hollow blatant assertions, without pointing to a SINGLE example of inaccuracy! Sorry, but mere gainsaying and name-calling is NOT refutation!
Minter

La Vista, NE

#18 Apr 21, 2013
Besara wrote:
<quoted text>Yup, it's amazing how little he really knows and winds up making a fool of himself. But hey, it's his website.
Indeed. He evaded legaleagle45's inquiry more than once. Krulick is a Joseph Goebbel's wannabe.

“Just the FACTS!”

Since: Apr 10

Ellenville, NY

#19 Apr 21, 2013
Nonsense! I addressed all legitimate "inquiries" and the essays themselves already put forth the necessary substantiation for my argument. To hold the coat for a non-present nobody is NOT proof of you blatant assertions and name-calling. Indeed, I constantly post dozens of questions and challenges that constantly go unanswered and unrefuted; funny that you can't deal with THAT reality.

Here's the deal... instead of bringing up unknown "inquirers" who aren't HERE, why don't YOU GUYS bring up actual relevant points, showing where ANY of my statements are false or lacking in authority or relevance. Or get "legaleagle45" go come out of some woodwork and deal with it directly here, instead of being a ghost you can refer to no purpose.
Minter

La Vista, NE

#20 Apr 21, 2013
Krulick wrote:
Nonsense! I addressed all legitimate "inquiries" and the essays themselves already put forth the necessary substantiation for my argument. To hold the coat for a non-present nobody is NOT proof of you blatant assertions and name-calling. Indeed, I constantly post dozens of questions and challenges that constantly go unanswered and unrefuted; funny that you can't deal with THAT reality.
Here's the deal... instead of bringing up unknown "inquirers" who aren't HERE, why don't YOU GUYS bring up actual relevant points, showing where ANY of my statements are false or lacking in authority or relevance. Or get "legaleagle45" go come out of some woodwork and deal with it directly here, instead of being a ghost you can refer to no purpose.
Face it, you have no fist in your glove. Your little website is a myriad of brain droppings that have failrd to render a cohesive argument to support your thesis.

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

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Wurtsboro Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
NY New York Primary Election Sept 14: Will you vote? (Sep '10) 3 hr Ann 16,777
How come Middletown has so many drug dealers? (Dec '08) 9 hr DaveK 46
NY Who do you support for Governor in New York in ... (Oct '10) Wed Vote Zornow 6,408
Food hub reps check out alternate sites Wed Concerned Citizen... 2
Sullivan County IDA looking to finalize food-hu... Tue Concerned Citizen... 1
Malone Dairy Middletown NY 1870's (Dec '06) Aug 23 babsga 34
Kevin Quick Guilty Sentenced Aug 15 Moshe 1

Related Topics

Wurtsboro Jobs

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]