Replies

You’re assuming quite a bit, based on some questions I have asked, and a few statements. I’ll set you straight:

I never meant to imply that I (or anyone) haa to “earn” the right to bear arms by getting training. Rights are not earned. What I mean is, guns are serious, and that with the right to own one, also comes responsibility. Do you disagree? In my case, that means examing my own physical competence, my state of mind, and motives and my heart, deeply, and preparing myself for these responsibilities, fully and completely. Protecting one’s life has been a right from the very first man, but guns are particularly deadly.

If I did not know, for example, how to properly store, clean, load, unload, handle or fire a gun, I believe I would be an irresponsible gun owner. But I would really love to won a gun or two one day. So that’s what I meant.

By the way, I lived in rural Minnesota most of my life, where hunting was a big feature of daily life, and guns were never considered ‘scary’. I am not a gunphobe. I moved to New York eight years ago, love it here, but also view things very independently of the New York state of mind.

I have no argument about whether right to carry laws work or don’t work. Our rights should not be defined by what works and what doesn’t. Our rights are built into the fabric of the universe by God; the Constitution only recognizes that they are there, and dedicates itself to a form a government that upholds those rights. (Natural law vs. positive law.)

Your statement in post 7 speaks with a different voice than your words now. Much of what you originally wrote is a catechism from the left. I think you’ve been in New York too long, they’ve gotten to you. Free speech is also serious, but there is no requirement for training and discipline in order to have it. Freedom of movement is dangerous, but no one suggests that permission to move about should be asked before relocating. Automobiles and fifth floor apartments are also dangerous, yet the restrictions on their use do not compare to those imposed on firearms by some states.

Since Jim didn’t answer what gun laws he would change in New York, I’ll offer a suggestion he might find acceptable.

All of them.

The Sullivan Act, New York’s handgun law, is one of the most racist pieces of garbage ever to see print in a law book. It was designed to prevent those bad Irish, Italian, and Jewish immigrants from getting their paws on firearms. Ellis Island might change your name from Horowitz or Rizzolini, and you might slip the precinct captain twenty bucks to sign the permit, but you had to appear before a judge who would determine if you were one of those ‘lesser’ castes.

Every large city that adopted right to carry laws had a reduction in crimes against persons, with an accompanying uptick in property crimes: vending machine thefts, etc. This above all else proved that RTC laws work - the bad guys are afraid of the good guys. It would be nice if everyone who owned a firearm underwent some training to be safe with it, but who will establish the training? Who will schedule it and determine the fee? The power to grant a permit is the power to deny it, and that power has been shamelessly abused in this country for the past 100 years.

No, allowing government to control how rights are exercised does not fit into my view. Government can’t be trusted.

As for your own interests, try Westside Rifle And Pistol on West 29th Street in Manhattan.