“Here in the crowded City, I know there are some folks who feel they need to be armed to be safe, but the idea of unfettered gun ownership here would give me the chills. Crime a bigger threat than forceful tyranny.”
Don’t disagree SF, altho surely you can’t call gun ownership in NYC ‘unfettered’.
Yet it is pretty much ‘unfettered’ in some other big urban places, Houston for example and things are not terrible.
“Here in the crowded City, I know there are some folks who feel they need to be armed to be safe, but the idea of unfettered gun ownership here would give me the chills. Crime a bigger threat than forceful tyranny.”
Almost all gun crime in this city involves an illegal fire arm, so the current policy of severely restricting ownership among law abiding citizens isn’t working. This was also the case when I lived in Cali and I wouldn’t be surprised if this is the case in most places.
Oh I see slopefarm, you were actually referring to the “well regulated” language in the 2nd amendment itself. Interesting question. I don’t know the answer.
And I note your rural vs. urban distinction. I think that’s consistent with my comment that I would not extend the 2nd amendment to public carrying of arms so long as there is an effective police presence. The rejoinder to that might be that the effective police presence is what is taking away your rights, but if the point is that you should be guaranteed the means of revolt, once you do revolt I don’t think you’re getting into debates about whether you’re entitled to carry in public.
denton, jackal — I have no problem with reading 2nd Amend. to prohibit absolute bans on firearm ownership. I do think one has to contend with the “well-regulated” part. Jackal’s earlier formulation would seem to read it out altogether, with the individual, not the militia, as the armed bulwark against tyranny.
My thinking on this changed somewhat after a trip out west, visitng a friend of a relative. They lived up the mountain about 5 miles and 20+ minutes’ drive out of the nearest village. They contend with bear and other wildlife as well as the occasional (usually benign) stranger. No way would he surrender his firearms and rely on 911 for safety. It makes sense.
Here in the crowded City, I know there are some folks who feel they need to be armed to be safe, but the idea of unfettered gun ownership here would give me the chills. Crime a bigger threat than forceful tyranny.
No, I wouldn’t call it unfettered in NYC. Just wary of constitutional arguments advanced by NRA et al that would open that door.
So, Benson, how about that Paladino?
“Here in the crowded City, I know there are some folks who feel they need to be armed to be safe, but the idea of unfettered gun ownership here would give me the chills. Crime a bigger threat than forceful tyranny.”
Don’t disagree SF, altho surely you can’t call gun ownership in NYC ‘unfettered’.
Yet it is pretty much ‘unfettered’ in some other big urban places, Houston for example and things are not terrible.
I made sure not to piss her off. ;)”
Good move.
“Here in the crowded City, I know there are some folks who feel they need to be armed to be safe, but the idea of unfettered gun ownership here would give me the chills. Crime a bigger threat than forceful tyranny.”
Almost all gun crime in this city involves an illegal fire arm, so the current policy of severely restricting ownership among law abiding citizens isn’t working. This was also the case when I lived in Cali and I wouldn’t be surprised if this is the case in most places.
LOL.
Ba dum bum, Legion.
Oh I see slopefarm, you were actually referring to the “well regulated” language in the 2nd amendment itself. Interesting question. I don’t know the answer.
And I note your rural vs. urban distinction. I think that’s consistent with my comment that I would not extend the 2nd amendment to public carrying of arms so long as there is an effective police presence. The rejoinder to that might be that the effective police presence is what is taking away your rights, but if the point is that you should be guaranteed the means of revolt, once you do revolt I don’t think you’re getting into debates about whether you’re entitled to carry in public.
cgar,
ha ha,
shotgun wedding. :o(
denton, jackal — I have no problem with reading 2nd Amend. to prohibit absolute bans on firearm ownership. I do think one has to contend with the “well-regulated” part. Jackal’s earlier formulation would seem to read it out altogether, with the individual, not the militia, as the armed bulwark against tyranny.
My thinking on this changed somewhat after a trip out west, visitng a friend of a relative. They lived up the mountain about 5 miles and 20+ minutes’ drive out of the nearest village. They contend with bear and other wildlife as well as the occasional (usually benign) stranger. No way would he surrender his firearms and rely on 911 for safety. It makes sense.
Here in the crowded City, I know there are some folks who feel they need to be armed to be safe, but the idea of unfettered gun ownership here would give me the chills. Crime a bigger threat than forceful tyranny.