Gun Laws Debate - Rochester, NY

Discuss the national Gun Laws debate in Rochester, NY.

Does the US need to reform its gun laws?

Rochester thinks US gun laws are fine.
Not at all
 
12
Yes
 
3
Undecided
 
0

Vote now in Rochester:

Comments
1 - 20 of 30 Comments Last updated -
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Wyle Dapes

United States

#1 Jul 23, 2012
The criminals don't follow the law, so more laws only hurt lawful gun owners, and the lawful gun owners help to protect us from criminals.
Wyle Dapes

United States

#3 Jul 23, 2012
And a legal gun owner wouldve stopped him if they were packing that night. New gun laws won't stop the shot spotters from going bezerk tonight.
_NBP_

Rochester, NY

#4 Jul 23, 2012
Wyle Dapes wrote:
The criminals don't follow the law, so more laws only hurt lawful gun owners, and the lawful gun owners help to protect us from criminals.
Ask Matthew Leach what he thinks of legal gun owners. Oh, you can't because one killed him.
endgunlawsnow

Rochester, NY

#5 Jul 23, 2012
yes we need to reform our gun laws, we need to make it so that every man and woman can have the right to defend themselves, especially without having to wait a year for a permit, and spend hundreds of dollars in order to be allowed to protect yourself

last i knew if you needed a permit, than it wasnt a right, even thought its our constitutional right!

when a predator picks out its prey, they pick the easiest target, if these criminal punks know that any random person they pick might blow their head off, or another bystander may come to the rescue and blow their head off, they will be slower to commit said crime!

its really easy to go rob someone, its not as easy if everyone around that person potentially has a gun

look at norway, some of the harshest gun laws in the world and anders still shot at people and blew people up

look at rochester ny, some of the harshest gun laws in the nation and yet we have over 100 shootings and 25 gun murders, yet only 3 arrests according to last count

i bet 99.9 percent of those crimes were done with "illegal" guns

and the biggest joke

the rpd keeps talkign about taking guns off the street

i remember a few weeks ago they claimed something like 40 guns off the street

WOW! what a big deal, they got one crate of guns off the streets now 100 more are shipped in to replace those

they will NEVER get rid of all of the "illegal" guns, what they NEED to do is address the issues that are making these people shoot each other

bottom line, you take away guns, they use bows, you take away bows, they use swords, take away swords they use farm tools, take away farm tools they will use a club, a stick, a rock, a knife

take away all those things and these smart evil criminals like the one in colorado will make bombs because all it takes to make a bomb is a basic knowledge of chemistry

what are we going to do, ban all chemists?

and lastly, even if we stop manufacturing guns today, destroy everyone ever built, they can be built in someones garage, or basement, from low tech bottom of the line guns, all the way up to high end military grade guns

i keep saying lastly but truly lastly, let even criminals buy guns legally, why? going back to the arrests in rochester

only 3 arrests, let them buy the guns legally, keep the ballistic information on file and when the rpd has one of these crimes, they will have a higher chance of being able to track the criminal, sure it wont work 100 percent of the time, but i bet theyd get more than 3 arrests that way

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#6 Jul 24, 2012
They need to enforce the laws that on the books now and hand out long prison terms to anyone that uses a firearm in a crime.
Jermaine Scriven

Rochester, NY

#7 Jul 24, 2012
No. Those who are commiting crimes are obtaining guns illegally therefore, reform would not have an impact at all.
Ha Ha

Fairport, NY

#8 Jul 24, 2012
_NBP_ wrote:
<quoted text>Ask Matthew Leach what he thinks of legal gun owners. Oh, you can't because one killed him.
And what did Matthew Leach do that got him killed by a legal gun owner? Was he a burglar? Did he do anything that could be considered provoking? There is more to it than just your simple inference.
Ha Ha

Fairport, NY

#9 Jul 24, 2012
Take a look at Kennisaw Ga. http://rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm
Ha Ha

Fairport, NY

#10 Jul 24, 2012
Jermaine Scriven wrote:
No. Those who are commiting crimes are obtaining guns illegally therefore, reform would not have an impact at all.
dead on!!!!
sMfdo3ny9xhIrI44 slZKwB5Tk

Rochester, NY

#11 Jul 24, 2012
NYS is ridiculous in terms of self defense. You can't even legally carry a Kubotan here in NYS. What options do you have to defend yourself here? Legally, you can either run, be a punching bag, or throw some punches. The last option will probably put you in cuffs too. That's it. Laws are reactive, not proactive. The government doesn't really care about your personal safety they just don't want you defend yourself against THEM. We all need to fight for our right to arm ourselves!
Ha Ha

Fairport, NY

#12 Jul 24, 2012
If you look back at the history for this "Fast & Furious" fiasco, you can see that the government went out of it's way to skew the gun crime stats to justify anti gun laws.

Bloomburg was on the CNN (Clinton News Network) talking about how illegal guns are out of control in the city ... and the only solution was to get rid of the legal guns.

Democrat Downstate loser!
NRA Advocate

Rochester, NY

#13 Jul 24, 2012
Guns....just what we need. James Holmes was armed to the TEE. LEGALLY!!! Now what.

Guns are for cowards and killers.

The US is just a violent country. Welcome to America where you can own and gun and get shot and get shot for not owning a gun.
Ha Ha

Fairport, NY

#14 Jul 24, 2012
NRA Advocate wrote:
Guns....just what we need. James Holmes was armed to the TEE. LEGALLY!!! Now what.
Guns are for cowards and killers.
The US is just a violent country. Welcome to America where you can own and gun and get shot and get shot for not owning a gun.
sorry, I couldn't understand that last one ... try again!
dieselknocker

Wilbraham, MA

#15 Jul 26, 2012
I am glad to see ROC is more gun friendly then not. I love this... they did a study in a city that restricted guns and the crime increased by 12% in the first year after it took effect. People are morons
KimberUltraCarry fortyfive

Wilbraham, MA

#16 Jul 26, 2012
Endgunlawsnow.... your are 100% correct
Ha Ha

Fairport, NY

#17 Jul 26, 2012
The 2nd amendment gave us all the right to bear arms ... so why is a permit needed? the second amendment should be enough!
gary

Rochester, NY

#18 Dec 22, 2012
yes a lot of guns need to be removed from the stores and shows
Law

Papillion, NE

#20 Jan 2, 2013
gary wrote:
yes a lot of guns need to be removed from the stores and shows
Why? Because you say so?
Law

Papillion, NE

#21 Jan 2, 2013
NRA Advocate wrote:
Guns....just what we need. James Holmes was armed to the TEE. LEGALLY!!! Now what.
Guns are for cowards and killers.
The US is just a violent country. Welcome to America where you can own and gun and get shot and get shot for not owning a gun.
You're the coward. You can't stand that people exercise rights and liberties that you hate. Go back hiding under the government's apron strings, loser!
Try Thinking

Rochester, NY

#22 Jan 9, 2013
The 2nd amendment is actually 3 part.
The 1st in giving the States the right to a "well regulated Militia" (note: by definition, well regulated in the 1700's meant "well supplied") and the 2nd in giving the right to keep and bear arms to individuals (no qualifiers). The 3rd part, the last 4 words that say it all, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms, is as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." T Jefferson

That being said, there are many people today, who have a deep,(and a legitimate), distrust of the government.

They believe that it is in the nature of governments to accumulate and to concentrate more and more power over people's lives. More power leads to more control. It has always been so. As Lord Acton so famously stated, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Meaning that those who are given power over others will use that power.

Even if the government is not specifically intending to do so, it is the nature of large governments that this occurs.

Now the government may espouse their desire to help the citizenry, but when individuals disagree with what the government determines is in their best interest, then those in power use coersion. Sometimes subtle sometimes not so subtle.

This concentration of power and increasing coersion can be gradual (like slowly turning up the heat on a lobster in a pot), or sudden (like dropping him into boiling water).

One need only be a casual student of history to see the process at work again and again and again.

The Second Ammendment is *our* garuantee that this loss of individual freedom and increasing control of our lives cannot be done with impunity.

One need only look at what is occurring in Syria today or in Mexico, or any of a dozen other locations around the globe .to see examples of what happens when the government controls the people and when the people are defenseless to resist.

Now you may feel that this distrust is not warrented, or that it verges on paranoia. Many might agree with you. However many more, would not.

The Founding Fathers believed fervently that ordinary citizens needed to be protected from an oppressive government. If they had not, then there would not have been a Second Amendment in the first instance. They were very distrustful of the concentration of power into the hands of the few. They set up safeguards through the concepts of Separation of Powers and Federalism to prevent it from happening. They added further protections in the Bill of Rights.

The Founding Fathers, I am certain, would be aghast at the degree to which the government controls the lives of Americans today. Indeed, they went into rebellion over transgressions less onerous than what we today have allowed to be imposed upon us.

Read the Declaration of Independence. Look at the reasons that are ennumerated there. They speak of an oppressive government seeking to impose it's will,(unlawfully in their opinion), upon the citizenry.

The Second Ammendment was NEVER about what type of arms citizens might own or about what the technological developments of the future might bring. It was not about hunting. It was not about home defense. It was not about target shooting. It was about the ability of citizens to oppose and resist the oppression of a tyrannical government.

There are those Americans that honestly feel that this point of view is not applicable to the 21st century; that such concerns are the things of history. They label those like myself, as 'gun nuts' or as paranoid, even dangerous.
If you are one that believes that this distrust is stuff out of a dusty history book, and has no relevance in the 21st century, then I urge you again to to look around more carefully.

Those of us that support the Second Ammendment feel that it's relevence is as valid now as it was when it was first penned.
(borrowed from J.G.)

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.

Rochester Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Police: Teen Shot in Missouri was Unarmed 1 hr Ha Ha 174
Has Nickbo Been Banned From Topix?? (Dec '13) 9 hr Player 19
Rochester Forum in Chaos 9 hr Hutch 7
Wisconsin revenge on cheating hubby - not repor... (Aug '09) 9 hr Mary 9
Feelings of Failure, Not Violent Content, Foste... 9 hr Albert 2
Poor Jews Sent Packing 9 hr Nickbos Friend 1
White Drunk Driver Blame Recently Diagnosed Dia... 11 hr LeroyJones 3

Rochester Jobs

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]