Gun Control Debate - Washington Heights, NY

No more guns period.

AC wrote:

No more guns period.

So you're rooting for the rapist ovr the 22 year old armed female that has to walk through a dimly lit parking lot to her car after work. How noble.

The nastiest, dirtiest, most dangerous, and democratically run cities in the U.S have the strictest gun control laws in the country...what has that gotten them? Remember, criminals don't register their guns. Let law abiding citizens own and carry guns and your city will be safe for all.

Horsetrader wrote:

The nastiest, dirtiest, most dangerous, and democratically run cities in the U.S have the strictest gun control laws in the country...what has that gotten them? Remember, criminals don't register their guns. Let law abiding citizens own and carry guns and your city will be safe for all.

i hear what you are saying but nyc is not like texas nor miami. Educate for a year then add 2 more years to the three years for carring a gun- with some discrtion to the judge. No reason to carry a gun. We have one ofbthe best police department in the country- they protect us on a daily basis.

wack wrote:

<quoted text> i hear what you are saying but nyc is not like texas nor miami. Educate for a year then add 2 more years to the three years for carring a gun- with some discrtion to the judge.

No. The 2nd Amendment says nothing of the kind. Rights and liberties should never be at a judges discretion unless a crime has been committed.

wack wrote:

No reason to carry a gun.

Because YOU say so?

wack wrote:

We have one ofbthe best police department in the country- they protect us on a daily basis.

There job is NOT protecting you nor are they constitutionally bound to do so. Why should the cops carry a gun if citizens shouldn't?

There isn't a need for anyone to carry a gun. I don't and I'm just fine.

C wrote:

There isn't a need for anyone to carry a gun.

Because YOU say so? Last I looked, the 2nd Amendment was part of the 'Bill of Rights', not the 'Bill of Needs'.

C wrote:

I don't and I'm just fine.

Do you also not have a fire extinguisher because you've never had a fire? Should a woman not carry something to defend herself if she's never been attacked?

Law wrote:

<quoted text>
Because YOU say so? Last I looked, the 2nd Amendment was part of the 'Bill of Rights', not the 'Bill of Needs'.
<quoted text>Do you also not have a fire extinguisher because you've never had a fire? Should a woman not carry something to defend herself if she's never been attacked?

wrong argument. Read between the lines. Their job is to enforce the law in turn protecting all law abiding people. Dont be such a new york times supporter.

Law wrote:

<quoted text>
No. The 2nd Amendment says nothing of the kind. Rights and liberties should never be at a judges discretion unless a crime has been committed.
<quoted text>
Because YOU say so?
<quoted text>There job is NOT protecting you nor are they constitutionally bound to do so. Why should the cops carry a gun if citizens shouldn't?

well isnt carrying an elegal hand gun a crime in nyc? We have mandatory 3 year jail term down here.

Law wrote:

<quoted text>
Because YOU say so? Last I looked, the 2nd Amendment was part of the 'Bill of Rights', not the 'Bill of Needs'.
<quoted text>Do you also not have a fire extinguisher because you've never had a fire? Should a woman not carry something to defend herself if she's never been attacked?

plus youre assuming everyone is going to go and buy a firearm. I for one have had a 38 shortbbarrel since I was 12 years old. Was a gift from my father. Dont like shooting it even for target practice- prefer the beretta or the 22 olympic special. Youre coming from a law abiding citizen prespective im talking aabout locking up everyone that is carrying for the purpose of commiting a crime.

Law wrote:

<quoted text>
Because YOU say so? Last I looked, the 2nd Amendment was part of the 'Bill of Rights', not the 'Bill of Needs'.
<quoted text>Do you also not have a fire extinguisher because you've never had a fire? Should a woman not carry something to defend herself if she's never been attacked?

dont compare a fire extinguisher with a hand gun- ni comparison.

Law wrote:

<quoted text>
Because YOU say so? Last I looked, the 2nd Amendment was part of the 'Bill of Rights', not the 'Bill of Needs'.
<quoted text>Do you also not have a fire extinguisher because you've never had a fire? Should a woman not carry something to defend herself if she's never been attacked?

I love charles bronson too but come on- granted it could help but thats one in a million- we used to smack kids in jr high school.and take their 22 specials for trying to show off.

wack wrote:

<quoted text> wrong argument. Read between the lines. Their job is to enforce the law in turn protecting all law abiding people.

Once again, the police are not Constitutionally bound to protect us.

wack wrote:

Dont be such a new york times supporter.

Really? NY Times is rabidly anti-2nd Amendment. That's not me.45

wack wrote:

<quoted text> well isnt carrying an elegal hand gun a crime in nyc?

What is an "elegal" hand gun?

wack wrote:

We have mandatory 3 year jail term down here.

Even with a permit?

wack wrote:

<quoted text> plus youre assuming everyone is going to go and buy a firearm.

Show me ware I made that assumption.

wack wrote:

I for one have had a 38 shortbbarrel since I was 12 years old. Was a gift from my father. Dont like shooting it even for target practice- prefer the beretta or the 22 olympic special. Youre coming from a law abiding citizen prespective im talking aabout locking up everyone that is carrying for the purpose of commiting a crime.

How do you know what their intent is when they're carrying until they DO break the law with it?

wack wrote:

<quoted text> dont compare a fire extinguisher with a hand gun- ni comparison.

Why? Both are purchased in advance of needing or using them.

wack wrote:

<quoted text> I love charles bronson too but come on- granted it could help but thats one in a million- we used to smack kids in jr high school.and take their 22 specials for trying to show off.

What does Charles Bronson have to do with peoples' right to keep and bear arms? What is this one-in-a-million you refer to?

Law wrote:

<quoted text>
Show me ware I made that assumption.
<quoted text>How do you know what their intent is when they're carrying until they DO break the law with it?

well im not against the lawvabiding citizen having guns nir carrying then but here in ny if you get caught you get mandatory time.- thats why i mentiined about giving the judge some discretiin in sentencing as I wouldnt want a "law" abiding citizen to do mandatory time just cause he/she got stopped at a checkpoint.

Law wrote:

<quoted text>Why? Both are purchased in advance of needing or using them.

not for the same purpose- plus criminals for most part dont carry fird extinguishers- is not an effective killing tool. Thats why.

Law wrote:

<quoted text>
Show me ware I made that assumption.
<quoted text>How do you know what their intent is when they're carrying until they DO break the law with it?

in your perfect world everyone would carry a firearm. In the real world the second amendment is not important because once again you think that all people would carry a gun if it was legal to do so in all states- the only peopls that would certainly carry a gun would be the crooks. Here in ny people stay away from then unless they really need it for instant protection or to kill someone- the crooks am talking about. We "law" abiding people keep our guns at home.