HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control Reform Activism (Group) » A loosening of NY SAFE Ac...

Sun May 26, 2013, 01:47 PM

A loosening of NY SAFE Act I Oppose.

ALBANY — State lawmakers are trying to carve out a loophole for retired cops in the sweeping state gun control law that Gov. Cuomo has touted as the toughest in the nation.

A bill approved by the state Assembly Thursday would allow retired police officers to keep assault weapons and high-capacity magazines they purchased during their time on the force.

“They are going to have what they retired with, what they trained on,” said Assemblyman Joe Lentol (D-Brooklyn), who sponsored the bill.

Lentol said the bill — which was approved by a 96-15 vote — simply corrects an “oversight” in Cuomo’s original gun law that failed to account for retired cops and federal law enforcement officers, who, despite no longer serving, often take action during a crisis.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/lawmakers-push-exempt-retired-cops-new-gun-restrictions-article-1.1353200#ixzz2UQQpzjpC
In short, it allows some private citizens, retired cops, to buy guns and magizines other New Yorkers can not. If you agree with this, then should I, as retired military, be exempt from the National Firearms Act of 1934 and have a full auto?

This kind of reminds me of Animal Farm and has no place in a liberal democracy. Carrying them on duty is one thing, off duty and after they leave the force, is quite another. Are cops and former cops more law abiding than the rest of us? Unless I see studies saying otherwise, I think not.+

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/19/us/philadelphia-police-rape-charge/index.html
http://metronews.ca/news/toronto/663486/video-toronto-cop-allegedly-threatens-to-beat-man-plant-cocaine-on-him/
http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Hialeah-Police-Officer-Arrested-Under-Cocaine-Charges-Cops-205130101.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lapd-fbi-20130525,0,3509991.story
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/da-victims-shot-drugs-handed-19252073#.UaJTaVGNPuO

29 replies, 6854 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 29 replies Author Time Post
Reply A loosening of NY SAFE Act I Oppose. (Original post)
gejohnston May 2013 OP
graham4anything May 2013 #1
gejohnston May 2013 #2
bobclark86 May 2013 #3
jimmy the one May 2013 #4
gejohnston May 2013 #5
jimmy the one May 2013 #6
gejohnston May 2013 #7
jimmy the one May 2013 #8
gejohnston May 2013 #10
jimmy the one May 2013 #9
gejohnston May 2013 #11
jimmy the one May 2013 #12
gejohnston May 2013 #13
billh58 May 2013 #14
gejohnston May 2013 #15
billh58 May 2013 #18
CreekDog May 2013 #25
jimmy the one May 2013 #16
gejohnston May 2013 #17
jimmy the one May 2013 #19
gejohnston May 2013 #20
DanTex May 2013 #21
gejohnston May 2013 #22
CreekDog May 2013 #23
gejohnston May 2013 #24
jimmy the one May 2013 #26
gejohnston May 2013 #27
jimmy the one May 2013 #28
billh58 May 2013 #29

Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Sun May 26, 2013, 01:57 PM

1. In my ideal world, NO private citizen EXCEPT city/state/fed law enforcer ONLY while on duty

 

therefore NO after shift ends
NO after retirement

but then I don't live in my ideal world

so I pass on saying yes/no at this time based on the fact that others still have guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Sun May 26, 2013, 02:06 PM

2. I understand that.

But, the folks in Albany, AFAIK, still hasn't amended it for on duty police.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Sun May 26, 2013, 03:22 PM

3. They keep changing this law...

First, it was to exempt cops (they left that part out). Then it was changed because nobody makes 7-round magazines. Now this.

I wish they'd make up their minds (or actually read stuff before it's passed... it was only 50 pages, so it wasn't that bad) before they approve stuff.

Now, we COULD go about starting a reserve officer training corps, which would keep these guys around if needed in a crisis (I'm thinking bagging sand during a hurricane).

ON THE EDIT:
Here we go...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Sun May 26, 2013, 05:06 PM

4. pop quiz

johnston: .. it allows some private citizens, retired cops, to buy guns and magizines other New Yorkers can not. If you agree with this, then should I, as retired military, be exempt from the National Firearms Act of 1934 and have a full auto?

Yes I agree with it, and no you shouldn't have a full auto since the excops wouldn't be allowed to either (see false dilemma in your book of fallacies you so often tout, johnston).
How in the world did you jump from excops being allowed to keep assault rifles they purchased when on active duty, to you being allowed to purchase an automatic ak47? a leap of faith? o ye who never met a meaty gun control law he didn't like? (bgchecks are not guncontrol - manchin/toomey).
And your OP remark is invalid anyway, unless I read it wrong, the revision would allow excops only to retain assault rifles & clips purchased when they were on active duty, not allowed to purchase any new ones, which would be in violation of the NY safe act.

j: Are cops and former cops more law abiding than the rest of us? Unless I see studies saying otherwise, I think not.+

No but they're better gun handlers than the average gunowner, & more responsible than the average gunnut, and generally are NOT gunnuts. Also, posting 5 links to police brutality proves really nothing except you're trying to gild your false dilemma.

And which of those gun control laws do you support johnston? do you support
A. Limiting clips to 10 rounds? as per recent obama/biden?
B. feinsteins' recent assault weapons/rifle ban (awb)?
C. I know you support at least Manchin toomey bgcheck, which failed, but do you support the earlier universal bg check proposal?
D. Do you support more fed funding for gun violence research?
E. Do you think US guncontrol laws affect gun suicide rates for the better?

I already know what you think of 'may issue' concealed carry laws:
johnston: it would be best to eliminate may issue to shall issue. I think may issue violates the 14th Amendment. The problem states are those with gun laws closer to your {may issue} liking. I don't see it changing in those states because of the classism in the gun control movement. The other may issue states, like Alabama and Maryland, are more ummmmmm race based than class. Texas, Florida, Wyoming, New Mexico have standards. New York and California do not. See the difference?
.. As much as gun control advocates bad mouth Texas laws, at least they have stringent training requirements that are uniform statewide.
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/1172110291 have a nyth day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #4)

Sun May 26, 2013, 05:22 PM

5. my reply

Yes I agree with it, and no you shouldn't have a full auto since the excops wouldn't be allowed to either (see false dilemma in your book of fallacies you so often tout, johnston).
How in the world did you jump from excops being allowed to keep assault rifles they purchased when on active duty, to you being allowed to purchase an automatic ak47? a leap of faith? o ye who never met a meaty gun control law he didn't like? (bgchecks are not guncontrol - manchin/toomey).
And your OP remark is invalid anyway, unless I read it wrong, the revision would allow excops only to retain assault rifles & clips purchased when they were on active duty, not allowed to purchase any new ones, which would be in violation of the NY safe act.
No, it will allow them to continue to buy and own them. The ones they carried on the force were police issue weapons.

No but they're better gun handlers than the average gunowner, & more responsible than the average gunnut, and generally are NOT gunnuts. Also, posting 5 links to police brutality proves really nothing except you're trying to gild your false dilemma.
I would like to see some empirical evidence to support that. It is an INTP thing, facts and honest data is the only thing that means anything to me.

And which of those gun control laws do you support johnston? do you support
A. Limiting clips to 10 rounds? as per recent obama/biden?
B. feinsteins' recent assault weapons/rifle ban (awb)?
C. I know you support at least Manchin toomey bgcheck, which failed, but do you support the earlier universal bg check proposal?
D. Do you support more fed funding for gun violence research?
E. Do you think US guncontrol laws affect gun suicide rates for the better?

A-not relevant
B-not relevant, but a law that lists a specific rifle with a solid wooden stock as "legally protected" while the exact same rifle with a folding stock as "banned" needs to be thought out better. Just me.
C-Do you support the provision of Manchin Toomey that would have allowed interstate handgun purchases that was completely banned without FFL under the 1968 Gun Control Act? If you are going to propose "universal background checks" I think it is best to do it right the first time. MT would have only affected gun show sales by non FFL holders in states that doesn't have UBC and intra state online sales, since interstate gun sales already have BGC unless they are violating the 1968 Gun Control Act. I actually think the system Michigan has been using since the 1960s is a good basis.
D-When done by criminologists funded by the DoJ as has been before, during, and after the CDC ban on advocacy. When social scientists reviewed the studies, the one speaking for the group, IIRC James Wright, described it as scientifically valid as NRA propaganda.
E-There is no empirical evidence to support that. That is the only reason that it matters. There is a study that attempts to make that connection, but fails in include other factors like rural vs urban.

I already know what you think of 'may issue' concealed carry laws:
johnston: it would be best to eliminate may issue to shall issue. I think may issue violates the 14th Amendment. The problem states are those with gun laws closer to your {may issue} liking. I don't see it changing in those states because of the classism in the gun control movement. The other may issue states, like Alabama and Maryland, are more ummmmmm race based than class. Texas, Florida, Wyoming, New Mexico have standards. New York and California do not. See the difference?
.. As much as gun control advocates bad mouth Texas laws, at least they have stringent training requirements that are uniform statewide. http://sync.democraticunderground.com/1172110291 have a nyth day.

The difference between "shall issue" and "may issue" simply means the discretion that the licensing authority have. Most of New York State is defaco "shall issue". Making it law simply means that if one meets the criteria outlined in the statute, the licensing authority must issue. It has nothing to do with how stringent or liberal the criteria is. For example, Wyoming's concealed carry law from 1888-1995 was a "shall issue" that limited permits to those in specific occupations. IOW, most of the CCW holders in NYC would be turned down under that system. I don't understand why you would be opposed to that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #5)

Sun May 26, 2013, 05:57 PM

6. pop quiz results

johnston: No, it will allow them {retired cops} to continue to buy and own them. The ones they carried on the force were police issue weapons

Oh I see; & you have a link to somewhere it says that? since I was going by the link you provided, which wrote:
1 New York State Assembly approved a bill that would allow retired police to keep assault weapons and high-capacity magazines they purchased during their time on the force.
2 They are going to have what they retired with, what they trained on,”http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/lawmakers-push-exempt-retired-cops-new-gun-restrictions-article-1.1353200#ixzz2URPc8fol

You could be right & your link could be incomplete, but I'm just following your own advice: "..facts and honest data is the only thing that means anything to me."
.. So far the only facts I've seen are your own link which disputes what you say.

Pop Quiz results: A. Limiting clips to 10 rounds? as per recent obama/biden?
B. feinsteins' recent assault weapons/rifle ban (awb)?


Johnston's answers: A-not relevant B-not relevant,

Followups. Why are they not relevant to you? that is, why do you oppose these two guncontrol issues? (as you've stated on rkba bd).
Do you consider yourself more to the 'progun' or more to the 'guncontrol' side of the national gun debate?

So far johnston, my pop quiz on 'Are you Really a Gun Control Advocate?', you've scored an F+, is all, but nra gives you an A-, so smile. You either declined to answer straightforwardly, or equivocated with so much double talk it's apparent you didn't want to express your true opinions, which you've so eloquently stated previously in such the pro gun manner, on the RKBA board.
You must have 9 lives on here, johnston.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #6)

Sun May 26, 2013, 06:10 PM

7. my "teacher" feedback

So far johnston, my pop quiz on 'Are you Really a Gun Control Advocate?', you've scored an F+, is all, but nra gives you an A-, so smile.
I never claimed to be anything. I simply said I oppose that provision if enacted. I said nothing about the rest of the act, so I did not violate the SOP.

You either declined to answer straightforwardly, or equivocated with so much double talk it's apparent you didn't want to express your true opinions, which you've so eloquently stated previously in such the pro gun manner, on the RKBA board.
You must have 9 lives on here, johnston.
Not only were my answers straightforward but they were honest and accurate. If my opinions happen to be too nuanced for you, that's not my problem.

http://www.monroecountysoar.com/2013/05/proposed-amendment-to-nys-safe-act/
this one explains amendment that allows retired cops to carry their magazines to full capacity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Mon May 27, 2013, 05:46 AM

8. eagerly awaiting the whole truth, & nothing but

johnston: In short, it allows some private citizens, retired cops, to buy guns and magizines other New Yorkers can not. If you agree with this, then should I, as retired military, be exempt from the National Firearms Act of 1934 and have a full auto?

Thank you johnston, you afterwards provided info which proves half of what you claimed above, that retired cops can, after they retire, purchase hi capacity ammo clips, not just keep what they had purchased while on active duty. That's what I wanted, proof, since your first link suggested otherwise.
But you still havent' proven the other half of your claim, that retired cops can purchase 'guns other new yorkers cannot', also suggesting those guns could include assault rifles.
Eagerly awaiting the final phase of your proving you are telling the whole truth.

Change in NY safe law, ~may2013, provided by johnston: POSSESSION OF A LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE THAT CONTAINS MORE THAN SEVEN ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION OR IS OBTAINED AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE CHAPTER OF THE LAWS OF TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN WHICH ADDED THIS PARAGRAPH AND HAS A CAPACITY OF, OR THAT CAN BE READILY RESTORED OR CONVERTED TO ACCEPT, MORE THAN SEVEN ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION, BY AN OFF-DUTY POLICE OFFICER OR PEACE OFFICER, OR A RETIRED POLICE OFFICER OR PEACE OFFICER.. is legal.

johnston: Not only were my answers straightforward but they were honest and accurate. If my opinions happen to be too nuanced for you, that's not my problem.

Your answers were frequently equivocal, as per your habit of evading & blowing smoke, examples below:

question: .. but do you support the earlier universal bg check proposal?
johnston's alleged 'straightforward' answer to the yes or no question: Do you support the provision of Manchin Toomey that would have allowed interstate handgun purchases that was completely banned without FFL under the 1968 Gun Control Act? If you are going to propose "universal background checks" I think it is best to do it right the first time. MT would have only affected gun show sales by non FFL holders in states that doesn't have UBC and intra state online sales, since interstate gun sales already have BGC unless they are violating the 1968 Gun Control Act.

Wow, that sure was straightforward, honest & accurate right? NOT.
And you refused the followup question: Do you consider yourself more to the 'progun' or more to the 'guncontrol' side of the national gun debate?
Eh, I think we all know by now, which side of the national gun debate you are on, johnston, but do provide one of your straightforward, honest & accurate answers, if you can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #8)

Mon May 27, 2013, 09:43 AM

10. last time

Do you support the provision of Manchin Toomey that would have allowed interstate handgun purchases that was completely banned without FFL under the 1968 Gun Control Act? If you are going to propose "universal background checks" I think it is best to do it right the first time. MT would have only affected gun show sales by non FFL holders in states that doesn't have UBC and intra state online sales, since interstate gun sales already have BGC unless they are violating the 1968 Gun Control Act.
Yes that honest and straightforward. MT was nothing either side made out to be. If you read the bill, you will see it. Like I said, Michigan is a better template. The fact remains, the bill would have loosened a provision, a kind of obscure one granted, provision of the 1968 Gun Control Act. I find it interesting that you find the fact that I am better informed on the bill that you are as "dishonest and not straightforward".

Thank you johnston, you afterwards provided info which proves half of what you claimed above, that retired cops can, after they retire, purchase hi capacity ammo clips, not just keep what they had purchased while on active duty. That's what I wanted, proof, since your first link suggested otherwise.
But you still haven't' proven the other half of your claim, that retired cops can purchase 'guns other new yorkers cannot', also suggesting those guns could include assault rifles.
Eagerly awaiting the final phase of your proving you are telling the whole truth.

They can keep and maintain the unmodified pistol magazines and load them to full capacity, while nonLE can only have modified magazines, assuming the pistol is designed for more than ten. Even then, the private person is allowed to only load seven unless at the range. They would be able possess them, so if their BIL in Florida mailed replacements for them, he would still be able to use and buy them. They should be limited to seven like everyone else.

Assault rifles are machine guns under the National Firearms Act and have been banned in NY since FDR was governor. This one uses the term "high power weapon"
http://rochesterhomepage.net/fulltext?nxd_id=391292
It says they may own. That proves my point. He should follow the exact same rules as everyone else.

The fact that you spend most of the space asking me on things not related to the OP and accusing me of dishonesty instead of commenting on the OP itself is interesting.
I honestly thought it would be of interest to your group and lead to an open and honest conversation about the OP. Apparently, I was in error.
It is relevant since cops and former cops are no more law abiding than the rest of us and they deserve not carve out in laws. The same applies to politicians. I have proven my point. I won't waste any more of my time with with absurd interrogation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Mon May 27, 2013, 06:28 AM

9. guncontrol & firearm suicide rates

pop quiz question E: Do you think US guncontrol laws affect gun suicide rates for the better?

johnston: E-There is no empirical evidence to support that. That is the only reason that it matters. There is a study that attempts to make that connection, but fails in include other factors like rural vs urban.

Actually there are several studies which demonstrate that stricter gun control laws, as well as lower gun ownership rates, lessen suicide rates. Note also stricter gun laws affect gun ownership rates, generally making guns less pervasive.

april 2013: A new study links the risk of suicide with gun ownership rates and people who voted for GW Bush.“States with the highest rates of gun ownership — for example, Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Alabama, WVirginia — also tended to have the highest suicide rates. These states were also carried overwhelmingly by George Bush in 2000..”The professor also argued stricter gun control laws would reduce suicide rates ..“Although policies aimed at seriously regulating firearm ownership would reduce individual suicides, such policies are likely to fail not because they do not work, but because many Americans remain opposed to meaningful gun control..” sociology professor Augustine Kposowa , who has studied suicide and its causes for 2 decades.. analyzed data relating to 131,636 individual suicides, http://collegeinsurrection.com/2013/04/uc-riverside-prof-links-high-suicide-rates-with-republicans-gun-owners/

Another: mar2013 States with more gun laws have fewer gun-related deaths, according to a new study.. "Our research gives clear evidence that laws have a role in preventing firearms deaths," .. Fleegler and researchers from Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School and Harvard School of Public Health studied information from all 50 states between 2007 to 2010, analyzing all firearm-related deaths.. States with the most laws had a mortality rate 42% lower than those states with the fewest laws.. The strong law states' firearm-related homicide rate was also 40% lower and their firearm-related suicide rate was 37% lower. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/07/gun-violence-study-chicago/1969227/

England and Wales {with strict guncontrol laws} have a gun homicide rate 21 times lower than that among white Americans, and 215 times lower than that among black Americans, and a gun suicide rate 47 times lower than that among white Americans. Other forms of murder and suicide do not make up the difference. The overall American homicide rate in 2008 was 54 per million inhabitants per year. The overall homicide rate in England and Wales in 2011 was 9.6 per million. The overall suicide rate in America in 2009 was 117 per million. The overall suicide rate in England and Wales in 2011 was 87 per million. http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2013/03/gun-control-0

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #9)

Mon May 27, 2013, 09:48 AM

11. I was hoping

actual studies where I can read the methodology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Mon May 27, 2013, 01:40 PM

12. devil's advocate outed

johnston, on seeing the empirical evidence I posted on suicide rates: I was hoping actual studies where I can read the methodology.

What now johnston? I'm supposed to spoon feed each actual study's results to you or something? What I posted WAS based upon empirical evidence, go be your own research monkey; I'm not going to turn a thread into your private reading room where you'd only tapdance around & blow smoke, your typical posting style as is becoming evident to others.

What are doing here anyway? you so rabidly progun. I realize why you started this thread, a devil's advocate trying to appear you support some token aspect of the raw NY SAFE law, by claiming you think excops should be banned from superclips & assault rifles, whereas you oppose the NYSafe law in itself, as well as awbs in general .
You really wanted to bash NY police, dintcha? as being not as good as rightwing cops like in texas, right? To bash new york cops, & other liberal police agencies, like you did below, answering rdharma where punks could get illegal guns - not gun shops, but police depts & the fed agcy BATFE:
1.. rdharman asked: How did the punks get the gatts? {guns}
2 .. Response to rdharma May 17, 2013 gejohnston under aged and had convictions one was on bail for a weapons charge. So, he didn't get them at Leroux's Gun and Gumbo. Where? several places. NYPD, KCPD, ATF, LAPD, and no story is complete
without .http://sync.democraticunderground.com/1172122887

johnston argues against NY SAFE act: #57 state constitution requires the waiting period and the leg{islature} didn't read it. He {Cuomo} either respects the NY Constitution or he doesn't. I give the law five months, and it won't make the state safer any more than USVI's strict gun laws making it safer. Besides, as a liberal and believer in rule of law, Coumo's stunt just as unacceptable as if he were some Republican wanting to restrict womens health access. To give him a free ride just because he is Dem and pushing what some would be a progressive cause would be hypocritical. Besides, the gun control movement has a hard time making rational, fallacy free arguments that often boil down to name calling. I can't honestly support such a cause. http://sync.democraticunderground.com/1172112383

same first link: 2 gejohnston .. about that bad logic .. why do gun control advocates string so many logical fallacies together to make their arguments? You didn't parrot anything. That really is the level of discourse that antis use around here
3 gejohnston 30. I'd say you would be the one blinded I have yet to see a logical argument from the gun hatey crowd. I do see a lot of post hoc ergo propter hoc, glittering generalities, appeals to emotion, name calling, but nothing remotely rational. BTW, those "every studies" are usually paid for by the same foundation that astro turfs VPC and Brady Center and not likely peer reviewed.
4 gejohnston (12,608 posts) 10. When antis use the false comparison of US vs UK or Japan

5 I doubt it is as big of a joke as VPC. .. OUTED. http://sync.democraticunderground.com/1172119229

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #12)

Mon May 27, 2013, 01:47 PM

13. Why am I here?

Last edited Mon May 27, 2013, 02:25 PM - Edit history (1)

What now johnston? I'm supposed to spoon feed each actual study's results to you or something? What I posted WAS based upon empirical evidence, go be your own research monkey; I'm not going to turn a thread into your private reading room where you'd only tapdance around & blow smoke, your typical posting style as is becoming evident to others.
No, the actual study that shows the methodology, and the peer review critiques to show they are valid.



You really wanted to bash NY police, dintcha? as being not as good as rightwing cops like in texas, right? To bash new york cops, & other liberal police agencies, like you did below, answering rdharma where punks could get illegal guns - not gun shops, but police depts & the fed agcy BATFE:
NYPD does a great job on their own. Liberal cops is an oxymoron.
I can't be rabid I have my shots. I am for logical and well though out regulation.
Tap dance and blow smoke? I said why I did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #13)

Mon May 27, 2013, 03:34 PM

14. Nice try, but you

are actually here to disrupt this "safe haven" group, and spew your Gungeon/NRA propaganda. Your assertion that the term "Liberal cops" is an oxymoron, pegs you as a "Libertarian Liberal" (true oxymoron) posing as a Democrat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #14)

Mon May 27, 2013, 05:01 PM

15. let me get this straight

I put up a thread in good faith only to be asked a bunch of irrelevant questions and personally attacked by another without saying anything about the OP but I'm the disrupter?
Your assertion that the term "Liberal cops" is an oxymoron, pegs you as a "Libertarian Liberal" (true oxymoron)
It simply reflects my observation of growing up in a family with a lot of cops and knowing a lot of cops. Many of them are moderate at best. If you think that alone pegs me as a libertarian, I don't see how.

posing as a Democrat.
My voter registration says Democrat. I voted for all Democrats as long as I can remember. Tell you what, no need to report me to one of your hosts, I will report myself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #15)

Mon May 27, 2013, 09:01 PM

18. Well the first

thing that smells funny is the "good faith" statement. With your track record in the Gungeon, how can you keep a straight face and say shit like that?

Like most Libertarians you distrust authority, and actually believe that your precious gun will keep the evil government away when they begin to display signs of NRA-defined "socialist" tyranny. Many of us know a "lot of cops" also, and your generalizations are typical of cold-dead-hands Libertarians.

I'm not going to turn you in to anyone, as it's actually a lot of fun watching you make yourself look foolish in this Group.

Now please pull the other one Bubba...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #18)

Tue May 28, 2013, 07:06 PM

25. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Mon May 27, 2013, 06:53 PM

16. fair & square

johnston: No, the actual study that shows the methodology, and the peer review critiques to show they are valid.

Go take a hike, be your own research monkey, the briefings I provided are sufficient to show you wrong.

Johnston: Liberal cops is an oxymoron. --- I didn't write 'liberal cops', you did. I mentioned 'liberal police agencies' like which emanate out of liberal districts & cities - they are not oxymoronic.

johnston: I am for logical and well though out regulation.

translation: I oppose guncontrol & the nra taught me how to say so.
Observe how johnston operates, readers - equivocates, changes the subject with smoke & mirrors, egomaniacal views where he can't be wrong, strained & fractured reasoning, progun slant which he can't hide despite his efforts. He's cornered. If you come a wolf in sheep's clothing don't fake righteous indignation if you're outed. Clffrd, you reading?

I put up a thread in good faith only to be asked a bunch of irrelevant questions and personally attacked by another without saying anything about the OP but I'm the disrupter?

Another lie; reread the entire thread, I referred to the OP several times & if the questions were irrelevant, why'd you answer half of them?

johnston's OP: .. it allows some private citizens, retired cops, to buy guns and magizines other New Yorkers can not.. Carrying them on duty is one thing, off duty and after they leave the force, is quite another. Are cops and former cops more law abiding than the rest of us? Unless I see studies saying otherwise, I think not.+

Retired cops may not be 'more law abiding' than everybody, but they generally are more law abiding than most all the people, and they generally are better gunhandlers than 90% of the public. They can handle violent situations where an assault rifle may truly be needed, far better than the avg gunowner with one.
You would really rather let every eligible person in new york who wants to have an assault rifle be able to have one, yet here you argue on a whim that retired new york cops, some having spent careers in LE, be denied because the general law disallows other new yorkers from having one. What you deem a double standard really isn't, since the law disallows youthful boozers or immature hotheads who want an ak47 cause it's 'neat to shoot so fast', from getting one, and just about any other dimwitted wannabe gunnut, while allowing a small previously tested group of excops to have them.
No, not all NY cops are fair & square, but they're more fair & square than the large majority of the american public.
(And personally I don't really care whether excops could have them or not)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #16)

Mon May 27, 2013, 07:00 PM

17. actually no

they are not more law abiding.
http://www.copblock.org/1595/making-the-case-for-more-police-accountability/

You would really rather let every eligible person in new york who wants to have an assault rifle be able to have one, yet here you argue on a whim that retired new york cops, some having spent careers in LE, be denied because the general law disallows other new yorkers from having one. What you deem a double standard really isn't, since the law disallows youthful boozers or immature hotheads who want an ak47 cause it's 'neat to shoot so fast', from getting one, and just about any other dimwitted wannabe gunnut, while allowing a small previously tested group of excops to have them.
No, not all NY cops are fair & square, but they're more fair & square than the large majority of the american public.
(And personally I don't really care whether excops could have them or not)
Where did I say I supported repealing the National Firearms Act? Assault rifles are machine guns under the act.
I won't waste my time with the rest of your banal nonsense. Suffice to say that if your thinking is that binary, nothing I can do for you. You referenced it, but were more interested in playing 20 questions rather than discussing it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Tue May 28, 2013, 06:56 AM

19. copblock, such the reputable source

johnston: Where did I say I supported repealing the National Firearms Act? Assault rifles are machine guns under the act.

See what I mean readers? he creates phantom concerns by asking tangential questions only meant to distract & shift focus off more legitimate & relevant concerns asked by his adversaries.

johnston: they {cops} are not more law abiding.
http://www.copblock.org/1595/making-the-case-for-more-police-accountability/

So you post a suspect link which doesn't disprove what I contended; the graph is suspect in itself, & your link 'copblock' an anti-govt disreputable source.
The copblock graph did not include robbery statistics, an integral component of violent crime, which, by simply subtracting the other felony crimes from the total violent crime rates listed, I peg at approx 150/100k civilian robbery rate v 50 cops, disincluded surely since robbery stats portrayed cops in a good light.
The copblock graph did not include property crime statistics such as burglary, larceny, auto theft, why not?
Even the total violent crime rate from this suspect graph shows civilian violcrime rate at 454 to cops 432, which in itself sorta supports my case that cops are more responsible (albeit barely, but again suspicious).

As far as 'copblock' goes, it evidently was founded 2010, & since then looky what has transpired: (aug2012): Adam "Ademo" Mueller, co-host of radio Free Talk Live and founder of CopBlockorg, was found guilty of illegal wiretapping and sentenced to 3 months in jail. Mueller maintained no wrongdoing, Atty said Mueller's intentions were "to disrupt, to be disobedient, to slow down the court system and clog it,". .. was found guilty of secretly recording conversations with police Capt... High School Principal... and school secretary.. without their consent. Co Superior Court jury deliberated 50 minutes before returning verdicts on 3 charges. Mueller, of Jackson, Wis., has maintained that he did nothing wrong and remained defiant.. Mueller, who co-founded CopBlockorg, was seeking their comments on a video he posted on YouTube ..showed confrontation between West High student 17, and police detective in the school's cafeteria.zzzz was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest..police dept review concluded Murphy did not use excessive force. http://www.unionleader.com/article/20120813/NEWS03/708139898

MORE!: The trial of 2 men who belong to organizations with strong anti-govt and anti-law enforcement views to begin in District Court, Adam Mueller and Pete.. are facing charges of illegally recording images and conversations with authorities at County Jail .. E and Mueller, are self-described “voluntaryists,” or people who believe that government should be abolished and replaced by a completely voluntary society based on the principles of natural law. They also believe that all forms of human association should be voluntary. The pair ran into trouble when they showed up at the jail last summer to bail out friends who were being held on drug and weapons charges. E and Mueller -- founding members of Cop Block, an organization dedicated to videotaping wrongdoing or heavy-handedness by law enforcement officers.. http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/07/trial_of_anti-government_defen.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #19)

Tue May 28, 2013, 09:32 AM

20. which reminds me

can you dispute the graph?
I'm old enough to remember when it was liberals who were skeptical of the police.
which reminds me of your favorite historian
http://www.emory.edu/news/Releases//Final_Report
so he is an anarchist.
But it isn't "anti government" unless you are saying any watchdog is "anti government", but it actually doesn't prove your point because of the high probability of underreporting among cops. It also does not include what would be a uniquely cop crime such as bribery, excessive force, etc.
None of that has nothing to do with my fundamental point in the OP. Once you leave the force, you are just another private citizen and deserve no rights or privileges above the rest of us. Firearms training isn't like riding a bike.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #20)

Tue May 28, 2013, 02:03 PM

21. Ahh, gejohnston. Long time, man.

Still up to the same tricks. When it comes to peer reviewed studies highlighting the negative effects of gun ownership, you always question the methodology (which you hardly every actually understand) and complain about "anti-gun bias" in academia, professors from Harvard or JHopkins or Duke or Stanford can't be trusted, the peer review system is unreliable unless you personally get to look at all of the referee reports (which of course, are confidential, but I'm sure you knew that...).

But then, when it comes to "evidence" on your own side, you produce a graph from some uncredentialed blogger!


How's it going? I haven't posted in the gungeon since this group was formed -- finally a place where progressives who believe in the scientific method can discuss gun policy. But I still have fond memories of the gungeon battles...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #21)

Tue May 28, 2013, 02:12 PM

22. When I saw this

I saw an interesting parallel. So, being from Harvard etc automatically makes them credible without actually examining their work.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/22/2044781/jason-richwine-harvard-dissertation-race-iq-hispanic/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Tue May 28, 2013, 04:13 PM

23. A common theme among anti gun control posters is that the laws should apply to law enforcement

often includes wanting the police and uniformed law enforcement to have to use weapons or arms or ammunition which is limited to what civilians can have.

one may agree or disagree with that --but the implied or stated rationale behind it among those against gun control is the conspiracy theory that the civilians will have to use their arms to overthrow the government.

that's why i think your post is disrupted.

it should be noted that you are vehemently against gun control, your posts on DU are almost exclusively about guns and opposed to gun control.

worse, you post or often agree with right wing talking points and whacked out stories/fear mongering on gun control.

you don't belong in this group --one wonders what you have in common politically with the average DUer since you post almost nothing aside from guns and to the right of the average DUer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #23)

Tue May 28, 2013, 04:40 PM

24. perhaps, but

I have no problem with cops on duty with full magazines etc. My issue is simply those who retire from the force, becoming private citizens once again. It has nothing to do with fears of fighting anyone, it simply the belief that there should not be a privileged class of any kind. I feel the same way about off duty cops drinking while armed in cop bars. Carrying while on duty in the performance of their duty is fine of course. Texas did a similar thing, allowing politicians to carry in sporting events. That should not be allowed either.
If one can't grasp the difference between the two, I can't do anything about.
I posted here for the reason I explained. I assumed common ground.
worse, you post or often agree with right wing talking points and whacked out stories/fear mongering on gun control.
For example? I don't believe I have. That said, as I explained before, posting in discussion on DU is different than what one does in larger world. I do learn a lot from the other areas, even though I don't have much to say there. Being where I am at, there is a lot of on the ground work to do. As probably know, I split my time between Florida and Wyoming. That means I need to spend more time selling the better ideas to a lot of folks that are either agnostic or fed a lot of bullshit.
You make assumptions on my views on other areas based not on any evidence I can think of. I find that unfortunate and can't explain how intelligent, thoughtful, and open minded people could come to such conclusion. It always isn't a simple left right issue, see Trump and Bloomberg.
Being a heretic on one issue probably isn't that unusual. Take my FIL for example, he was a pretty conservative guy for the most part. But if you knew his views on single payer health care, one would assume that he was a progressive. Why? I can't explain his not fitting in the mold, I can only explain mine. Part of it is regional and experience. My actual views are pretty well explained here.
http://www.wyomingdemocrats.com/2012-platform2010-bylaws

Not to be word usage police, but cops are civilians too, unless they are military police. Pun not intended.

That said, I thank you for the thoughtful and civil post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Wed May 29, 2013, 05:45 AM

26. spinning the same top on M/T

johnston: Do you support the provision of Manchin Toomey that would have allowed interstate handgun purchases that was completely banned without FFL under the 1968 Gun Control Act?

Johnston said the same on RKBA board, with a thread he started called 'a provision in Manchin-Toomey that isn't mentioned': "IOW, it would amend the 1968 Gun Control Act to allow interstate handgun sales without an FFL. Personally, I'm opposed to the idea,"

Even your own side shot you down on this, on your own thread, johnston, so why'd you stop posting on your own thread after you got hit with your own flak? You didn't answer any of these counters, why not? Now you're on here spinning the same top.

kudzu: I think it would make handguns follow the same rules as long guns.. You'd still have to buy through an FFL in the other state, but you wouldn't have to have it shipped to an FFL in your state to do the transfer. At least that's how I read it

lurks often: I think you are interpreting it incorrectly. Any firearms sale of a non antique firearm that crosses state lines requires an FFL and I do not believe that Manchin-Toomey would have changed that.
Current Federal law allows you to buy a long gun from any FFL.. What Manchin-Toomey would have done is change the handgun purchase law to match the current law how long guns are handled.


travis: 9. I'm fine with this change.http://sync.democraticunderground.com/1172121948

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #26)

Wed May 29, 2013, 08:21 AM

27. without an FFL in your own state

right now there are no interstate sales period. Slight misinterpretation of the law by a layman. The fact remains, MT would allow someone from Ohio to buy a handgun from an FFL in Wisconsin without it being shipped an FFL in Ohio. The 1968 Gun Control Act allows it for long guns but not handguns.
That misinterpretation of the law is quite different than asserting "cops are better trained than 90 percent of gun nuts" without offering a shred of evidence, but demanding proof of others. It is also a long ways from verbose misrepresentation of the conversation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #27)

Wed May 29, 2013, 09:30 AM

28. suddenly

johnston: without an FFL in your own state right now there are no interstate sales period. Slight misinterpretation of the law by a layman.. MT would allow someone from Ohio to buy a handgun from an FFL in Wisconsin without it being shipped an FFL in Ohio. The 1968 Gun Control Act allows it for long guns but not handguns.

I presume you were replying to these progun posters below, since I really couldn't care less.

1 lurks often, to johnston's concern above: I think you are interpreting it incorrectly. Any firearms sale of a non antique firearm that crosses state lines requires an FFL and I do not believe that Manchin-Toomey would have changed that. Current Federal law allows you to buy a long gun from any FFL.. What Manchin-Toomey would have done is change the handgun purchase law to match the current law how long guns are handled
2 kudzu, ditto: I think it would make handguns follow the same rules as long guns.. You'd still have to buy through an FFL in the other state, but you wouldn't have to have it shipped to an FFL in your state to do the transfer. At least that's how I read it


Since you 'suddenly' stopped replying to those guys on your very own RKBA thread, I hope you won't mind if I cross post your reply there, to update them as to your views.

johnston: That misinterpretation of the law is quite different than asserting "cops are better trained than 90 percent of gun nuts" without offering a shred of evidence, but demanding proof of others.

You're hilarious. I didn't offer a 'shred of evidence' about that since I didn't write that.
Here's what I actually wrote: .. they're {cops} better gun handlers than the average gunowner, & more responsible than the average gunnut, and generally are NOT gunnuts.
How I used '90%': they generally are better gunhandlers than 90% of the public.

You're supposed to apologize,retract &/or clarify when you misquote a person. Hah, dream on jimmy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #28)

Wed May 29, 2013, 09:46 AM

29. Thanks for the

entertainment. When a Gungeoneer starts trotting out the NRA talking points and begins to call others "layman", they just seem to dig themselves deeper and deeper holes. But it's fun to watch...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread