Collins earns NRA endorsement, A rating for defense of Second Amendment

I have to laugh at the BS "Obama's trying to take your guns!" line.

Since when is trying to require a background check to prevent felons and insane/mentally unstable folks trying to "take away your guns"? Well, unless you are a felon or insane....

There will be at least one, if not a dozen, replies of "criminals will always be able to get guns"... That may be true, but why make it easy? The current background checks have prevented over 2 million sales - that's 2 million weapons not in the hands of folks who shouldn't have them. Many of those folks np may have ended up acquiring weapons, but many didn't.

I don't know about the Obama rhetoric, Tim but you ask
"Since when is trying to require a background check to prevent felons and insane/mentally unstable folks trying to "take away your guns"? Well, unless you are a felon or insane...."

First off who gets to determine mental instability? That's a label that has been thrown around cavalierly a bit over the years. It's a case of give an inch, the government will take a mile. If a person was convicted of a felony, did their punishment and was released into society, do they not have the right to protect themselves anymore?

Since when? Since 1790 when the US Constitution was ratified. The Second Amendment gives every citizen the right to carry a weapon – loaded, unloaded, concealed, not concealed – anywhere they deem necessary to protect themselves, their family, and neighbors. It even states national security as a reason for firearm ownership.

I'm no big fan of the NRA, I don't care for their overlap of politics and Second Amendment rights. I don't necessarily care for Republican politicians either, as they will turn away from the Second Amendment rights of the people when it conflicts with their political goals. The Constitution is clear on this.

Dave - can I carry a loaded rocket launcher into an elementary classroom? How about a loaded Desert Eagle with the safety off? Into the Supreme Court while in session? How about in to your house (without your permission)? You seriously believe the 2nd Amendment clearly states that EVERY person can carry ANY weapon with them ANYPLACE?!? I don't think so. At least, I certainly hope you don't believe that.

No right is 100% absolute, because there will be conflicts between person A's rights and person B's rights. A's freedom of religion does not give him the right to force my business to be closed on Sunday. B's freedom of speech does not allow him to say "A is a pederast" without proof. And A's right to bear arms does not trump my right to live safely if A has been declared mentally unstable or incompetent by medical professionals, or in some states if he's been convicted of violent offenses.

Who decides? The way our government is set up, Congress and state legislatures make the laws, Executive (fed and state) executes them, and Justice (fed and state) determines their legality based on our governing documents.

(Still waiting for the NYS Justice to pare down that SAFE act a bit more)

Well Tim, here's the thing - with freedom also comes responsibility. I said that everyone has the right to carry a weapon as they see fit for their protection. Taking a rocket launcher into an elementary school, I'm sure would be hard to explain a valid reason for doing so. I believe that the majority of people will exercise good judgement and not do the extremist actions you describe. Obviously, you do not think that way. Of course, there will always be a few who can't or won't have consideration for others, that's why we will always need Police. Conflicts between person A and person b's rights are why we have and will always need a court system and I see those both as proper roles of government, to act on and decide when someone's rights have been violated. As for carrying at a private residence (or business) your home is your castle, you have the right to make the rules on your private property. So, yes it is nearly an absolute right, but it also has repercussions as should any threatening action.
I learned a new word, "pederast". I'm not so sure I'm any better off for it though.

"I believe that the majority of people will exercise good judgement and not do the extremist actions you describe."

Majority perhaps. But the mayhem caused by citizens in possession of firearms, both legally and otherwise , belies this Pollyannaish notion.

Scott, are you suggesting that only the government have the guns and that regular citizens not be allowed to have them?

Pollyannaish which means Unrealistically Optimistic? So then your view of individual liberty is pessimistic? Many states have very, very little regulations on gun ownership. http://www.gunsandammo.com/galleries/ga-ranks-the-best-states-for-gun-o…
There doesn't seem to be any correlation between more restrictive laws and less gun violence. Freedom is a good thing, people respond to positive reinforcement and belief in their sense of humanity.
So,Scott by your last sentence do we interpret you believe that if all firearms are confiscated that there will be no more violence? Now who is unrealistic?

"Scott, are you suggesting that only the government have the guns and that regular citizens not be allowed to have them?"

I'm saying the Second Amendment comes at an obscenely bloody cost, which the gun lobby is loath to own. The day of the citizen soldier, like the time of frontier Indian raids and slave rebellions, the needs the Second Amendment addressed, are long past. Though I'm not a hunter, I don't begrudge hunters their rifles. Handguns -- the cost benefit ratio is way too negative.

Are you suggesting that an armed citizenry can out-gun the government of the United States?

Dave - you will be the better of it the next time you watch "Fletch", and Chevy Chase utters something about "that pederast Hanahan".... ;-)

"Pollyannaish which means Unrealistically Optimistic?"

Franky, the word I had in mind was naive.

Tim the only problem with your 2 million people denied guns because of background checks. Is that I doubt many of those 2 million stopped there, Even reasonable people that feel they need a firearm are willing to go around the background check if they have to. After all as you pointed out... criminals dont care to go thru background checks.

Also Scott and Tim, believe it or not the Govt does make mistakes and the Constitution isn't perfect nor permanent nor absolute. The experiment in prohibition is a perfect example of Our Govt, using the Constitution to remove the right of the public to consume alcohol. If you are a student of history you would know all these reasons that the pro gun vs anti gun people use are echoes of the peoples arguments on alcohol back then.

It will probably end the same way as well, people will ignore the law and do what they feel they have the right to do, until at some point our Govt will recognize it's wrong and repeal. The question is how many people will be killed in clashing with the Govt. And since prohibition is what created and empowered organized crime. Who knows what will come from Gun Prohibition.

I dont remember which movie this quote is from but the people of the United States have to figure out...... if the juice is worth the squeeze.

Believing that adults are capable of good decisions and can take care of themselves without government is naive. Got it

I guess next we have to outlaw tv's and couches because of the deaths they contribute to in this country by encouraging sedentary behavior. Then maybe spoons because of the deaths they cause from contributing to obesity. Drugs being outlawed has worked so well for drugs. How about knives next I do believe that there have been a few massacres in public places where the weapon used is a knife.

Perhaps we should regulate shovels and hammers as well as they have been used in many many murders.

Where does the realization come in that it's people that do these acts that we all fear, not the tools they use. Like any of you, you take away a tool from a person to get a job done, they will just find the next best tool to accomplish it. Thats human nature too.

Haven't seen that one in a long long time. But I'll be prepared if I do!

"Believing that adults are capable of good decisions and can take care of themselves without government is naive. Got it"

Good. Guns, no government, and the innate goodness of man. You're gonna love Somalia!

That's a pretty old, worn and tired false analogy Scott. Somalia has gun laws, stricter than ours; they are ignored because their authoritarian, central planning, strong arm dictator, aggressor government failed. Corruption took over, the people weren't prepared in any sort of way to look out for themselves. Over time, they now have a new constitution and elected government and are pushing the outside interests, mostly radical Islamist, (but us too) out. They are working it out, themselves.

It's almost like saying that a liberal would love North Korea, with its socialized health care and strict regulation of business and no private gun owners.

Hey Dave dont you just love negative votes? Seems to me when you hit people head on with truth and common sense they cant dispute without looking stupid. Then they hit you with negative votes.

"Corruption took over, the people weren't prepared in any sort of way to look out for themselves."

"Believing that adults are capable of good decisions and can take care of themselves without government is naive. Got it"

No contradictions here! And they were so well armed, how could they not look out for themselves?

" Over time, they now have a new constitution and elected government. . ."

There you go again, the old "government is the answer" argument!

*wink.*

I said the Somalians weren't prepared, not incapable. Big difference. There's just no comparison between the conditions here and in Somalia. It's a huge reach any way you look at it, but then that's what you have to do to support a weak argument.

I don't even pay attention to that Kyle. There are certain people who I'm sure just give a negative vote to anything I write whether they read it or not. I'm sure you aren't worried about popularity anymore than I am. I do want to be sure and thank Howard and Billie for this open forum.

Worried? No.... Amused? Yes. It is a great place thanks to Howard and Billie, unlike other local media news outlets locally that censor or screen comments. This one allows expression and only asks very little in the way of rules. (No personal attacks and no anonimity) So it is in fact excellent.

Now if only we can get McDonalds to bring back McRib sammiches :)

Scott, what I am suggesting is that an armed citizenry is better able to protect themselves and property than an unarmed one.

"Scott, what I am suggesting is that an armed citizenry is better able to protect themselves and property than an unarmed one."

I understand that, John. But I can tell you that somehow, in my sixty-six years, I've never had the need for a weapon. And I've lived in some pretty sketchy, inner-city type places. Personally, I have never known anyone who's needed, or employed a gun to save the day. A kid I knew in high school managed to shoot himself in the foot with a Ruger .22 while target shooting, and that's about it.

Scott, On the other hand I do know people (4) who have used a gun to stop harm to themselves or others (all in the Buffalo area).

I've never needed one either, Scott. It has nothing to do with need. It is a Constitutional right, Period. You don't like it, amend the Constitution. Good luck with that.

"I've never needed one either, Scott. It has nothing to do with need."

Excellent Dave. So, you admit your Second Amendment obsession has nothing to do with need. . .

So then -- pretty please -- how do you manage to justify the cost?

What cost Scott/ How do you justify the need to take away Constitutional right of everyone over the actions of a few? How about the costs of this Safe Act? The business it drives away from the state, or the people. How about the money it costs local govts forced to do the state's bidding and paperwork?

And all for what, to regulate the people that already own guns legally who follow the laws regarding their sports or hobby regarding firearms. Further limiting them, not criminals.

There is not one part of this so-called safe act that improves safety of the public in the least little bit. Just look at the people here in batavia arrested with guns or gun related violence charges. They are walking the streets among us and still carrying, even shooting them off in the neighborhoods at night. Why because people like you who like sheep follow our leaders and their rhetoric on what is good for you rather than critically think about it for yourself. No one is any safer, and alot more people are now less safe than they were because those that would hurt them with guns are empowered, while those with guns who would protect them rather than shoot them are faced with the choice to comply or be criminalized.

There may be no "need" by your definition to own a firearm, but it's better to own one and know how to operate it safely and not need it. Rather than to need it and not be able to get one.

As Ben Franklin said: Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

It still rings true today and is not defined as only being valid in his day and age. But being a student of history there is another observation Mr. Franklin also made that is fully applicable here in regards to this subject.

Ben Franklin: " for there is much truth in the Italian saying, Make yourselves sheep, and the wolves will eat you."

I don't have a second amendment obsession. I want all of everyone's Constitutional rights protected. They are all important. How can you justify infringing on one of our rights, when that can be used to encroach elsewhere, like on the 4th for instance. Our Constitutional rights balance each other.
By "the cost" I assume you mean gun violence and I can't justify it, some (a very small minority) of people will do harm to others. The reasons are varied, and I'm not going to go through the failures of the human condition on here. I'll defer to Kyle's comment above, people will find all manner of ways to harm another, how do you justify hammers, baseball bats and automobiles? People abuse drugs (take them for other than its intended purpose) and die, do you want to prohibit medicine?
My obsession currently is meatball subs.
BTW - The state of NY has been infringing on our Second Amendment rights since 1911 when the Sullivan Act was invoked. You can have that as proof that I can live in an imperfect world. Doesn't mean we all should just give up.

". . .how do you justify hammers, baseball bats and automobiles? People abuse drugs (take them for other than its intended purpose) and die, do you want to prohibit medicine?"

These things have utility beyond their potential lethality. Handguns are designed with one purpose in mind and, excepting target practice and intimidation, are otherwise useless.

"My obsession currently is meatball subs."

I sit corrected. For me it's curry.

"The state of NY has been infringing on our Second Amendment rights since 1911 when the Sullivan Act was invoked."

So far, the courts disagree. Mind you, I think gun control laws are, to a large degree, ineffectual. But I believe they're better than nothing.

I think Chris Rock had the best idea. . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZrFVtmRXrw

"Handguns ... excepting target practice and intimidation, are otherwise useless."

Really, Scott? REALLY?

I'd love to be there when you tried to tell THAT to 43-year-old Traci Johnson.
"Who's Traci Johnson", you ask?
Traci is the second victim of the "OK beheading terrorist".

Now, it's only a guess on my part, but I'd be willing to bet that she, and ALL of her family & friends, are grateful that there was a licensed, trained and AVAILABLE pistol owner close by. One that didn't have to rely on calling 911. One that didn't have to run to his wall safe, open it, put rounds in the chamber and THEN shoot the threat. One that wasn't required to keep a gun lock on his weapon, which required him to keep the key to the lock in a seperate location (for safety's sake).

Yep! I'd love to hear you try to convince her that handguns are only good for target practice and intimidation. There was NO "target practice" OR "intimidation" that day in OK. There was only a good guy with a legal handgun to help.

Well, I see that it took less than 5 minutes for someone to give a negative vote for what I wrote. But, apparently, someone with NO balls explaining why. No surprise there.

Deleted (duplicate comment)

"Yep! I'd love to hear you try to convince her that handguns are only good for target practice and intimidation."

Ed, I think you need to read what I wrote again. Carefully this time. When you copied my comment, you put ellipses in place of the main part of the statement, leaving the qualifying exceptions only.

It was an honest mistake, I'm sure.

""Handguns ... excepting target practice and intimidation, are otherwise useless."

What I actually wrote:

Handguns are designed with one purpose in mind and, excepting target practice and intimidation, are otherwise useless.

"But, apparently, someone with NO balls explaining why."

Why does anyone need to explain their vote, and why do you feel that explaining one's vote would require "balls"?

Hmmmm a handgun can be used to signal to search parties if you were to become lost. As Ed pointed out they can also be used to STOP some of these massacres before more innocents perish in the. They can be used to scare away or shoot annoyance animals if their presence means danger to someone. They can be used to start races, or fires in an emergency. Break a lock that you might not have any other tool for....

If you put you mind to it there are many many uses besides target practice and or intimidation. How many children are alive today because someone with a handgun was able to use it to get a vicious dog off of a child's face or leg, especially these drug dealer raised fighting breeds that they train to be deadly.

The lost art of reading comprehension. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

I'll settle for a vodka.

Let me switch this up, how would you like it if NYS passed restrictive laws that removed your drivers liscence if you are involved in an automobile accident as a driver? Requiring you to prove ability to handle a vehicle medically, psychologically and then you had to register to purchase gas from that point on. Even if you were the driver HIT by another that was at fault? Would that be fair? Would you be as complacent and tell everyone that the Govt knows what it is doing and to move from the state if they dont like it?

Didn't think so.

Dang it, Kyle. It appears you beat me to the booze!

Now I stand corrected. Scott. You are correct that, BASICALLY, handguns are designed for one purpose - shooting something.
As Kyle pointed out, they could, and sometimes do, have other uses.

I never said that voters MUST explain their votes (and, yes, I DO realize that you never wrote that I said that). I, for one, like the fact that some will explain their reasons for falling on one side or the other of a comment. That doesn't mean that anyone MUST explain theirselves.

As for the 'balls' word, it was meant as nerve, not testicles. Can't be any more blunt than that. When you vote here, it's anonymous. But, when you explain your vote, it attaches you to the comment. Some never have the nerve to do that. That's their choice.

Thanks Ed.

Scott the comment had nothing to do with Booze. The only reference made was having a drunk driver hit you as a driver. It was the easiest no fault scenario in driving to come up with.

NONE of these Safe Act laws do anything to make the public safe. All they do is restrict legal gun owners and limit them or discourage them to owning weapons.

Thats the same as punishing and limiting the OTHER sober driver in a DUI accident, as I said in my example earlier.

there's also this
http://memebinge.com/seems-reasonable-shoot-spider-with-pistol/

Overkill. So wrong.

And I've just made peace with the spiders through photography.