New Yorkers... Give up your guns.

[JBecker]

Whenever I see a "no weapons" sign, "gun free zone" or other bullshit like that, I turn around and walk the other way.

Gun free zones scare the shit out of me.

When I see a "no weapons" sign and it's on anything other than a federal building or other true gun free zone like a post office or school (haven't been in a school in 10 years tho), I still head right on in.

The worst they can do is ask you to leave if you are discovered to be carrying. Concealed means concealed.

 

[bofa]

Whenever I see a "no weapons" sign, "gun free zone" or other bullshit like that, I turn around and walk the other way.

Gun free zones scare the shit out of me.

I used to do that.

When I see a "no weapons" sign and it's on anything other than a federal building or other true gun free zone like a post office or school (haven't been in a school in 10 years tho), I still head right on in.

The worst they can do is ask you to leave if you are discovered to be carrying. Concealed means concealed.

And now I do this. I figure if I'm in a situation where they find out I have one, I'll be glad I did.

I still have a hard time accepting some venues... like sporting events and hospitals. I don't so much mind the event, but do not like the walk to/from the car.

 

[KidVermicious]

I do however think that the military will follow an order to go through NYC, Detroit, Los Angeles and other big cities and disarm the thugs and gang bangers if the order was given. That will do this country some good but it will never happen.

It never should happen, SV, you're not thinking it through. Using the military against civilians or for domestic law enforcement is verboten, and for good reason. You could have the best intentions in the world, but once you set the precedent that the military can disarm "criminals", then you've opened the door for anybody with the political clout to redefine "criminal" to kick us into a brutal despotism that WOULD take armed rebellion to overthrow.

Nothing against anybody serving under arms now, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[LINY4Runner]

I do however think that the military will follow an order to go through NYC, Detroit, Los Angeles and other big cities and disarm the thugs and gang bangers if the order was given. That will do this country some good but it will never happen.

I can't back this one for you, man...that's a gross violation of rights, and frankly not the military's job.
You can't disarm the "thugs" without passing through or at least vetting the law-abiding gun owners too, and unless they're being charged with a crime, you can't exactly go door-to-door like that. It's wrong.

 

[SV_Dude]

So I guess your command on the ground is authorized to decide who is law abiding and who are thugs?

This is so flawed its hilarious. Too much TV jack.

I can't back this one for you, man...that's a gross violation of rights, and frankly not the military's job.
You can't disarm the "thugs" without passing through or at least vetting the law-abiding gun owners too, and unless they're being charged with a crime, you can't exactly go door-to-door like that. It's wrong.

I didn't think that last comment through very well. You're right, it's not the military's job nor should it happen. There does need to be a way to clean up the streets but to do it effectively it can never happen without violating people's rights to some extent.

I guess it all goes back to arming the law abiding civilians to be able to protect themselves and show the thugs that they won't be able to get what they want by hurting the innocent.

 

[LINY4Runner]

I didn't think that last comment through very well. You're right, it's not the military's job nor should it happen. There does need to be a way to clean up the streets but to do it effectively it can never happen without violating people's rights to some extent.

I guess it all goes back to arming the law abiding civilians to be able to protect themselves and show the thugs that they won't be able to get what they want by hurting the innocent.

Training and Enforcement are key. Criminals don't walk around holding up signs saying they're criminals. And you can't arrest them until they commit a crime. So it's tough. More police coverage couldn't hurt. NYPD's Stop and Frisk policy, while flawed, actually wrangled quite a few bad guys. I'm still unsure on where I stand with that one, can't seem to pick a side. I'm sure if I was black and wore clothes 9 sizes too big and got frisked on a daily basis I'd feel a little different about it. Don't know. What I do know is that it took a LOT of criminals and a LOT of illegal guns and drugs off the street. One pawn at a time like we did with Al Qaeda. But then there's the 4th Amendment...I don't know...can't pick a side.

 

[RunninInGA]

Training and Enforcement are key. Criminals don't walk around holding up signs saying they're criminals. And you can't arrest them until they commit a crime. So it's tough. More police coverage couldn't hurt. NYPD's Stop and Frisk policy, while flawed, actually wrangled quite a few bad guys. I'm still unsure on where I stand with that one, can't seem to pick a side. I'm sure if I was black and wore clothes 9 sizes too big and got frisked on a daily basis I'd feel a little different about it. Don't know. What I do know is that it took a LOT of criminals and a LOT of illegal guns and drugs off the street. One pawn at a time like we did with Al Qaeda. But then there's the 4th Amendment...I don't know...can't pick a side.

I wrangle back and forth myself with this one. On the one hand, I see all the good that comes from it, but on the other, I understand that there are infringements to freedoms as well. I often find myself resolute on one side of the fence just to be convinced that the opposite is true during the next conversation.:fencing:

 

[LINY4Runner]

Training and Enforcement are key. Criminals don't walk around holding up signs saying they're criminals. And you can't arrest them until they commit a crime. So it's tough. More police coverage couldn't hurt. NYPD's Stop and Frisk policy, while flawed, actually wrangled quite a few bad guys. I'm still unsure on where I stand with that one, can't seem to pick a side. I'm sure if I was black and wore clothes 9 sizes too big and got frisked on a daily basis I'd feel a little different about it. Don't know. What I do know is that it took a LOT of criminals and a LOT of illegal guns and drugs off the street. One pawn at a time like we did with Al Qaeda. But then there's the 4th Amendment...I don't know...can't pick a side.

a couple of idiots breaking into a well-armed house couldn't hurt either :

 

[LINY4Runner]

I wrangle back and forth myself with this one. On the one hand, I see all the good that comes from it, but on the other, I understand that there are infringements to freedoms as well. I often find myself resolute on one side of the fence just to be convinced that the opposite is true during the next conversation.:fencing:

it's a tough call when it's something that doesn't directly affect you. I'm in the same boat.

 

[bofa]

One pawn at a time

This actually works... the problem is we have gotten too soft on crime in some ways and ridiculously strict in others. We let people out early as a cost cutting measure. Murderers can serve less time than financial criminals or repeat small possession offenders. There are some cases in which you can actually serve less time for killing than for using a gun in a crime and not killing. On the flip side, we are too quick to throw stiff sentences at petty crimes and that tends to set people down a dark path from which it's near impossible to recover.

For ex.
Murderers should always be eligible for the death penalty.
Repeat offender thieves should be eligible for losing a limb.
Rapists should be eligible for castration.

I also think we need to get more in return from those serving medium to long term sentences. Put their asses to work.

 

[KidVermicious]

it's a tough call when it's something that doesn't directly affect you. I'm in the same boat.

First they came...

I feel like an infringement of a Constitutional freedom is not to be tolerated, regardless of who it affects. Those freedoms are supposed to be absolute and guaranteed for a reason, and they more we let them erode, the more likely it is we'll never get them back in our lifetime.

 

[JBecker]

First they came...

I feel like an infringement of a Constitutional freedom is not to be tolerated, regardless of who it affects. Those freedoms are supposed to be absolute and guaranteed for a reason, and they more we let them erode, the more likely it is we'll never get them back in our lifetime.

This ^

An unconstitutional stop and search is just that. Doesn't matter what they got in return.

"Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security."

-Benjamin Franklin

 

[hikenbike]

I wrangle back and forth myself with this one. On the one hand, I see all the good that comes from it, but on the other, I understand that there are infringements to freedoms as well. I often find myself resolute on one side of the fence just to be convinced that the opposite is true during the next conversation.:fencing:

Very true. NYC and the like should never be used as an example. Not all states/cities/counties are nearly created the same. "Special" circumstances exist everywhere. There are no clear cut solutions and because if this our "rights" cannot always be upheld as we'd like or exist as we believe them to.

 

[LINY4Runner]

First they came...

I feel like an infringement of a Constitutional freedom is not to be tolerated, regardless of who it affects. Those freedoms are supposed to be absolute and guaranteed for a reason, and they more we let them erode, the more likely it is we'll never get them back in our lifetime.

I understand full-well the unconstitutionality of Stop and Frisk...not saying I support it...but I don't denounce it either...it actually kind of annoys me that I don't have a solid stand in this one, because I want to...I want to say it's unconstitutional to unreasonably search someone walking on the street and defend the people it's targeting...but at the same time I'm not legally allowed to defend myself in NY using a weapon, and I'm a little guy at 5'6", 130lbs, I like knowing that if I can't carry, they're not letting the criminals carry either, or they're slowly weeding out the gun toting criminals...I've hear a lot of stories of people being stopped and saying "you think I'm stupid enough to carry a gun with you guys stopping all of us and patting us down?" so it's working...without a doubt it's stopping and preventing crime...
It's also bending some rights. I say bending because NYPD can make it within their rights to search or detain on "probable cause", citing the persons demeanor or actions.

It's tough. We can make a whole thread about stop and frisk.

 

[LINY4Runner]

back on topic....

MOLON LABE ANDY!

 

[LandCruiser]

My old man told me how back after the war in Poland they first "asked" you to give up your guns.

Then they "told" you that you need to give up your guns, or face jail time.

Then they "demanded" that you tell on any neighbors that may have guns, so their doors could be kicked in and they be sent to prison... or you go to jail.

After that, they did what they want, including declaring martial law on their own people in the 80s when the Poles didn't like kissing the Soviets' asses.

I'm not giving up my guns. Growing up with martial law as a kid once was enough for me. These libtarded American politicians remind me of totalitarian Commies in the East Bloc. Bloomberg would be best buddies with Andropov and Brezhnev.

 

[dorton]

Good example of why the 2nd Ammendment is so important.

Battle of Athens, TN

The Battle of Athens

THE BATTLE OF ATHENS (TENNESSEE) 1946: A CASE STUDY IN GRASSROOTS RESTORATION OF THE RULE OF LAW BY FORCE

 

[zopperman]

On a topical note, I'm going back to my parents this weekend which is 20 mins outside NYC and I'll get to see my guns :sniper:

 

[SV_Dude]

Welp, this was a great thread... Let's see if it can get back on track after I clean it up. For those of you who were not breaking any rules, please don't get upset if I delete your posts when they are a reply to other nonsense posts.

 

[RunninInGA]

You guys and girls can cry and whine if you'd like but you're cluttering up the thread for the rest of us that aren't 4 years old.









Found this article interesting. I've never been to NYC and have no frame of reference except what you read and see on tv or news and internet clips. Is the NY Daily News a reputable newspaper?

If you're black, you are almost 25 times more likely to be shot in New York City than a white person — and you are also more likely to be arrested for pulling a trigger, alarming new NYPD statistics show.
Data collected during the first six months of the year reveal 74% of the city’s 567 shooting victims were black. An additional 21.5% were Hispanic. Less than 3% of shooting victims were white, according to the report.


Read more: NYPD stats: 70% of shooting suspects in first half of 2013 were black - NY Daily News