Cynical Nation

I hope someone took cell phone pictures up their skirts.

"Why are New Yorker's so goddamn obsessed with Virginia's gun laws? "

Have you ever considered the fact that these 2 states are in the same country?

First of all, people from out of state do come into New York City to protest abortion. I have seen abortion protests in the city, as well as the buses that brought in the protestors.

Second, it sounds like Bloomberg's undercover detectives exposed how laws were not being enforced and that Virginia officials didn't like it because it exposed how laws were not being enforced.

"Why are New Yorker's so goddamn obsessed with Virginia's gun laws?" (BNJ)


"Have you ever considered the fact that these 2 states are in the same country?" (BW)


The states are individually responsibel for their own gun laws, BW.

Ergo, New York has no more right to try and impose it's poor gun laws on VA, any more than VA has a right to impose its somewhat better ones on NY.

Rudy G has seemed to have come around on this and seems sincere in his view that "what works in New York CITY, does not work in the rest of New York State, let alone the entire nation.

Bush Makes Power Grab
President Bush, without so much as issuing a press statement, on May 9 signed a directive that granted near dictatorial powers to the office of the president in the event of a national emergency declared by the president.

The "National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive," with the dual designation of NSPD-51, as a National Security Presidential Directive, and HSPD-20, as a Homeland Security Presidential Directive, establishes under the office of president a new National Continuity Coordinator.

That job, as the document describes, is to make plans for "National Essential Functions" of all federal, state, local, territorial, and tribal governments, as well as private sector organizations to continue functioning under the president's directives in the event of a national emergency.

The directive loosely defines "catastrophic emergency" as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."

When the President determines a catastrophic emergency has occurred, the President can take over all government functions and direct all private sector activities to ensure we will emerge from the emergency with an "enduring constitutional government."

Translated into layman's terms, when the President determines a national emergency has occurred, the President can declare to the office of the presidency powers usually assumed by dictators to direct any and all government and business activities until the emergency is declared over.

Ironically, the directive sees no contradiction in the assumption of dictatorial powers by the President with the goal of maintaining constitutional continuity through an emergency.

Whatcha sayin, friend?

The Pres-DENT is gunna done take away our guns!

Now, it's talk like that that really gets my blood a boilin!

Who is this Pres-DENT guy anyways?!

If he's goona take this here gun from me....well, he better come armed to the teeth.

Barely, I can't figure out what any of that has to do with gun rights, but, it was fun to play along a little bit.

Also, I'm certain, that, as usual, you've misread both the powers and intent of that Directive.

In the wake of Katrina and a Dem Governess stonewalling the federal call to have the National Guard take over N.O., it's certainly a welcome stpe to enable the President, in such an emergency, to be able to force that "care" on them.

If you disagree, I only request that you frame your disagreement in the form of a "What doesn't belong and why" type question.

It'll be more fun that way.

It has to do with laughing in your faces because while you and Barry wring your hands over what some silly women are doing in New York, your Chimp leader has declared himself king.

It will be great though when Hillary has those powers in a few years. She can just declare an emergency and finally get that whale Rush Limbaugh detoxed.

Holy CRAP Barely!

At least one fellow conspiracy theorist agrees with you!

“Under that plan, he entrusts himself with leading the entire federal government, not just the Executive Branch. And he gives himself the responsibility both “insuring continuity and for ensuring constitutional government.”

http://ourtomorrow.blogspot.com/2007/05/bush-issues-directives-giving-bush.html

Oh wait, DAMMIT!

Except there’s THIS from the actual directive;

This directive shall be implemented in a manner that is consistent with, and facilitates effective implementation of, provisions of the Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency or the exercise of its powers, and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 U.S.C. 19), with consultation of the Vice President and, as appropriate, others involved. Heads of executive departments and agencies shall ensure that appropriate support is available to the Vice President and others involved as necessary to be prepared at all times to implement those provisions.

(21) This directive:

(a) Shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and the authorities of agencies, or heads of agencies, vested by law, and subject to the availability of appropriations;

(b) Shall not be construed to impair or otherwise affect (i) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, and legislative proposals, or (ii) the authority of the Secretary of Defense over the Department of Defense, including the chain of command for military forces from the President, to the Secretary of Defense, to the commander of military forces, or military command and control procedures; and

(c) Is not intended to, and does not, create any rights or benefits, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party against the United States, its agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(22) Revocation. Presidential Decision Directive 67 of October 21, 1998 ("Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations"), including all Annexes thereto, is hereby revoked.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

I can't believe that I turned my head side-ways.

Whether Virginia does indeed enforce its gun laws does affect nearby states because the guns bought there show up in neighboring states.

What JMK and Barry are saying that it is OK if Virginia decides to be lax about its gun laws, because it is their business to enforce them or not. Of course, this puts lie to the notion that there are enough laws on the books, that it is just a matter of enforcing them, because it is the gunowners who are against such enforcement and it is the gunowners who get in a fit when someone exposes how the laws are not being enforced.

These women are not silly. They are right. They have every right to be concerned with the inadequate Virginia gun laws. Anyone from Virginia can travel to New York anytime without restrictions.

No it doesn't PE, as new York's gun laws don't apply to VA. The federal background checks are being followed in VA and federal law didn't bar someone, like Cho, who had outpatient mental health treatment, be barred from buying guns. The feds barred those involuntarily committed, but felt that barring gun purchases to those who needed voluntary outpatient care, might keep people from seeking that outpatient help.

Would it? Who Knows, but we'll soon find out, as VA recently passed a state law that does just that.

But no one can claim that New York's gun laws should be applied in VA. For instance, it may well be that New York City's government and most of its population may well feel they NEED a full gun ban, in order to maintain public safety.

The good people of Kennesaw, Georgia feel that the best way to fight crime is to make sure everyone is armed - Kennesaw, GA mandated gun ownership for its citizens back in 1982.

Is it possible for guns from smaller cities and towns to make their way into places like D.C. and NYC which feel they need gun bans, and where most of the people support those bans?

I don't know, I'd guess so, but that's really immaterial isn't it?

Washington, D.C. and NYC are rersponsible for policing their own areas and enforcing those gun bans...and those local statutes don't override the statues of other localities, any more than, say, NYC's "public saftey concerns" outweigh Kennesaw, GA's public safety concerns.

See?

Perhaps Kennesaw, GA should demand that NYC & D.C. try mandating guns. Perhaps that wouldn't be such a bad idea.

John Lott (a Yale Research Fellow) who came into the debate presuming that the private ownership of guns was a bad idea, actually came away, after carefully studying the data for several years, writing the best seller, More Guns, Less Crime.

John Lott looked at the data and became, in effect, a Kennesaw convert.

The point is that Bloomberg's detectives were able to make illegal gun purchases in a way that it was clear to those selling that the purchases were being made illegally which means that the laws were not being enforced.

This isn't about Virginia following New York's laws, this is about Virginia enforcing their own laws.

>The point is that Bloomberg's detectives were able to make illegal gun purchases in a way that it was clear to those selling that the purchases were being made illegally...

If so, then both Bloomberg's employees and citizens of the Commonwealth of Virgina broke the law. Which one should Bloomberg properly be more concerned with?

PE, to date, the only reputable and documented study I've seen on guns and their impact on crime was done by John Lott (who did admittedly come into that debate with a bias AGAINST guns).

NYC & D.C. both believe that they NEED gun bans.

It is THEIR sole responsibility to control, guns within their districts, so much as they can - I'm rooting against them, because I don't believe gun bans do anything other than disarm the law-abiding, as there is no evidence that gun laws impact the thug's ability to procure guns.

If a neighboring state allows anyone not federally barred from buying a gun, to purchase guns, that should NOT impact Washington D.C.'s or NYC's ability to enforce their own gun bans.

The idea that "guns are too easy to buy elsewhere and smuggle in," is as lame as the argument that "guns are too easy to make (many kinds of guns are easy enough to make) so we have to be able to search your house at random.

Bans of any kind, are hard to enforce and they should be.

I can't imagine a hard-working, self-respecting predatory thug, a thug who's willing to break the many laws against robbery, assault and murder, being worried about breaking a single gun law that carries a whopping maximum sentence of one year in jail.

Of course, such laws aren't aimed at that segment of society.

What I'm saying is, although thugs may find VA's and GA's gun laws a benefit, it's unlikely that many law-abiding citizens will avail themselves of that, as they're not inclined to risk breaking most laws.

So the targeted group, law-abiding citizens, will still be disarmed by NYC's & D.C.'s gun bans.

A)You don't want to own a gun? Then DON'T.

B)You don't want criminals to have guns? Good luck with that!

But, how does stopping someone with NO criminal record from owning a gun change or effect either A or B? It doesn't.

How would stopping the VT shooter from buying a legal gun have changed that day? It may have delayed it, or actually moved it up, depending on how good his street contacts were.

Anti-gun people have no grasp of the concept that someone who wants to kill, will do so with whatever means necessary. If guns weren't in existence, they'd find something else. Maybe something worse. Ever heard necessity is the mother of invention? Killers are killers. The legality of the weapons they use doesn't matter to them.

I'm sorry you were born so stupid and have no logical thinking ability. But, at least (unfortunately) you have plenty of like company.

Barry's Question:

If so, then both Bloomberg's employees and citizens of the Commonwealth of Virgina broke the law. Which one should Bloomberg properly be more concerned with?

PE's Answer:

The greater potential problem, in my view, is the failure to enforce the law by the gun shop owners of Virginia because that is more likely to be systematic and ongoing. Bloomberg has said he will stop his operations once the new law takes effect. I did not read of any statements promising better law enforcement coming from the state of Virginia.

Gun shop owners are in business to sell guns....so it's a weak system that depends on gun shop owners to "enforce the law."

It's as stupid as forcing grocery stores to card beer and cigarette purchasers. It's idiotic. That's NOT a store's business or responsibility.

But the thing is, BOTH NYC and D.C. have thriving blackmarkets in guns - you can actually get silencers, flash suppressors, as well as a full range of handguns on the street.

Do some New Yorkers buy guns in VA?

I'm sure some do, but I'm also pretty sure it's few of the local thugs living in the Webster Houses in the Bronx, etc.

Just a guess, but I'm thinking those guys buy their hardware a little more local.

A large number of the guns that end up in criminals' hands are sold by a relatively small number of dealers. It is my understanding that Bloomberg's government targeted stores they knew were the source of multiple guns that ended up in criminals' hands.

Furthermore, the sting was set up in such a way that it was obvious to anyone that the person filling out the paperwork was not the one interested in the weapon so any law abiding dealer would question the sale.

The ATF is undermanned and the Virginia government does not seem to be policing its gun dealerships. So the Bloomberg government did the right thing by exposing how laws were being ignored.

Why is it stupid to force a liquor store to card purchasers? Either they operate their business under the law or they don't.

If new guns were not available or if the ability to get them was reduced, there would still be old guns. However, if you allow the purchase of new guns in quantity, then you only need one guy to travel to Virginia (or maybe two if that guy has a record.)

All I am asking for is some common sense. Keep the ethical dealers in business while throwing those who can't obey the law out of business.

You guys are defending dealers who break the law.. because why? To promote freedom, to replenish the tree of liberty?

Yeah, right.

PE, it is indeed a flawed (and yes, "stupid," as in counter-intuitive) system that relies on the vendors to police their customer own base.

Bottom-line, the grocery store clerk has no real vested interest in denying a sale of cigarettes or beer to anyone who "looks legal." You could see where a mature looking fourteen y/o is going to get cigs from the clerk who's prone to err on the side of the sale, rather than caution.

It's the same with car dealers or gun dealers - if you're selling a product, you're interested in the SALE, not as much the buyer's motives, UNLESS those can be tweaked to increases the chances for a sale.

I know the government mentality is, "Who cares if you make any sales, you're still going to get your $10/hour sitting behind the counter," but the businessman knows that if you sit long enough without sales, you're out of business.

If you're selling cars and a prospective buyer comes in asking about torgue and then says, "So, if I just happened to run over someone with this baby, they'd wind up all torn up, their chances of survival would be, well, pretty low."

Would you talk to the police?

Would you look to void the sale?

Or would you answer the question, "Yeah with how low this car rides and the amount of torque this engine can generate, running over someone would be a pretty deadly proposition. Hell, if you ran over two or three people it'd preety much take'm all out."

Personally, I think it'd be best to just look to make that sale. After all, the guy's probably just a little nervous and looking to talk....maybe he just has poor "people skills."

Either way, who cares, so long as he can afford the payments?

It's the police department's job to investigate and solve crimes, not a salesmen's.

If some guy comes into a gun store and starts chatting the salesman up about gun transfers, I personally don't believe ANY salesman is going to talk about "ease of transfer," BUT I hope they'd say something like, "That would depend on the regualtions where you live, sir," as that's really the only credible answer.

I mean what does any gun store sales guy care what any given purchaser does with a product once it's sold?

Guns aren't all that hard to sell.

They're not like cameras.

Not many legitimate gun buyers come in with a lot of questions. A buyer generally knows what he/she wants.

A lot of places have shooting ranges where you can try a gun out. You can pretty much answer your own questions.

Moreover, the NYPD is also pretty under-staffed lately. I wonder why they're operating stings in VA gun stores, when lots of street corner gun dealers are active in NYC.

Lots of things can be dangerous - chain saws, claw hammers, box cutters, etc.

About 1-2% of the population is predatory by nature and many such individuals are prone to violence. That's just the way things are.

Object/tool control is ultimately futile.

Some better degree of people control (early assessment and interdiction) is what we should be striving for.

Can you even read, JMK? Or is it comprehension that is causing you problems?

As usual, you post a lot of stuff, but none of it actually makes your point. Your comments might lead one to believe that you posted something that said Chimp does NOT assume all powers over government and commerce, but if you read carefully, nothing you posted withdraws the dictatorial powers Chimp is granting himself, not in the least.

He's gone in a few months, Bailey. Besides, Rome did it, or rather, a version of it. And look how they did.

JMK, I have worked at a liquor store. Enforcing the law is not that hard.

"But probably woefully inconvenient if it risks making you late for your pilates class, or if it might cause your decaf soy vanilla latte to get get cold...Why are New Yorker's so goddamn obsessed with Virginia's gun laws?"

You're absolutely right. But how did their hair look? How much did they pay for haircuts? That's what's really important.

PE, I didn't say it was "hard," just counter-intuitive - store sales clerks are paid to make sales, not to turn them away.

Again, many NYC nabes are rife with street corner arms dealers...I wonder why VA's gun laws are a bigger problem than that for gthe Bloomberg administration.

Well, JMK, earlier in this debate, I was told how "stupid" I am, yet I was able to balance enforcing the law with successfully selling wine and liquor.

As far as Bloomberg not focusing on the "bigger" problem, well you sound like those critics of Guilliani who, on the one hand, would admit they were breaking the law, but who would then cry how others were breaking bigger laws.

The law is the law. Most gun dealers are law abiding. The gun dealers who consistently and knowingly break the law should be put out of business.

For the record, I didn't call you any names, and I'd agree that vendors SHOULD sell their wares according to established law, but the feds are supposed to do random checks on that.

What I've said is that even if we got all fifty states to enact NYC's & D.C.'s gu n bans, it would merely increase the price of guns on the blackmarket.

Moreover, guns are easy enough to make and in such an environment there'd be people willing to make guns to sell, in response to those high profits.

That's the basic flaw in "tool/object control," it mistakes banning a given object, for changing human nature.

What we have is ahuman problem (violence) and even if a ban could remove ONE tool/object used for violence, it would still not stop violent people from doing what they naturally tend to do - commit acts of violence.

It was Dan O. who said I was "born stupid."

Or perhaps he was refering to BW. :)

In any case, I'm not smart enough to make a gun and my guess is that most criminals are not either.

Right now, guns used in crimes are traced back to just a handful of gun dealers and it is those gun dealers who are found to be lax in following the law. I think the mayors of this country are justifiably outraged by the inability to shut these dealers down.

PE, you may not want to believe this, but you don't have to be very smart, or even all that handy/mechanically inclined to do that.

I made a zip gun at fifteen, and it worked well enough, for a one shot weapon - easy to reload and easy to fire, with a decent muzzle velocity for its size and simplicity. I've since learned how to make better weapons (I don't at this point) from various people - if you have the right tools you can make just about anything.

I'd guess that you're probably somewhat smarter than I am, so I have no doubt you could do more than that, if you felt motivated for any reason.

Even though I support our "War on Terrorism," I must confess that I don't and never have reviled "unconventional warfare" at all. In fact, I think it's a very effective strategy - pounding civilian populations until they turn on their own governments and militaries, at least that's the idea.

Though I reviled the IRA's politics (socialist), I didn't find their use of unconventional warfare, at all untoward - terribly viscious and horrific, but not unjustiied, given the odds.

What were they supposed to do, line up for a fair fight?

In our current case, I revile our enemy (Islamic jihadism), NOT his means of waging war.

I accept that violence is far more prevalent in all of us than most of us would like to believe, it's always there, we feel it in a moment's temper, just below the surface.

Some of us fight it well, others do not. The worst, at least the most "at risk," are those who claim to "never feel such emotions."

The idea that gun bans COULD diminish violence is a disgusting idea to me. That probably sounds bad, so please let me explain; To me, it's like a man charming a cobra with the fangs pulled out...there's something disgustingly cowardly about pretending to face a danger that really holds no actual danger - AND dealing with humans is...and SHOULD REMAIN (in my view) frought with danger.

We are, after all, a predatory species.

Whenever I think of the gun ban, I think of Julio Gonzalez, for he is one of the men who've proven the abject futility of the gun ban.

On March 25th, 1990, after being rebuffed by a coat-check girl at a local social club, the humiliated Gonzalez purchased a dollar's worth of gasoline at a nearby filling station, poured it into a quart bottle and made a homemade wick out of some cloth.

He returned to the Happyland Social Club and ignited that gasoline bomb at the front door (it was an illegal club with no other exits)...Julio Gonzalez went into the history books that night, exactly seventy-nine years to the day after the Triangle Shirtwaist Company Factory fire killed 146 garment workers - he murdered 87 patrons of the Happyland Social Club...all to assuage his rejection at the hands of one girl.

Gonzalez should've gotten the death penalty but he only got 4,276 years in New York (I kid you not)....and he's eligible for parole (somehow) next year! (I guess that sentence was in dog years, or something)

Still, what Happyland proves, to me, is that there's no way to contain man's depravity....and we shouldn't seek cowardly means that would, in effect, defang the predators among us - we owe them the decency to face them down, if we cannot make a commitment to early assessment and interdiction.

There are predators, there are maniacs among us (and yes, I often say "thank God that there are, because so many of us owe our very livelihoods to that fact) and simply making one tool unavailable to the determined killer, will only divert him to another means.

Judges, lawyers, ADA's, Court & Correction officers, police, firemen, Emergency Room staffs, etc., ALL owe a large portion of their livelihoods to the fact that there are such people among us.

As an uncle of mine, who was a judge, used to say, "If they didn't occur naturally, we'd have had to invent them."

Indeed....indeed, it's sought of the price we pay for living under so many layers of "bureaucratic protection," isn't it?

you kill me if not for guns your four fathers could not feed the famley so you would not be hear ! now lets get all the guns do you realey like to do that . I hope not . I like my kids safe !