New York National Rifle Association official barred from carrying a gun
Source: NY Daily News
A top National Rifle Association official in New York no longer has the right to bear arms.
Richard D’Alauro, the NRA’s field representative for the city and its suburbs, is forbidden from owning guns under an order of protection stemming from a confrontation with his wife in their Long Island home, the Daily News has learned.
Suffolk County authorities filed misdemeanor charges of assault and endangering the welfare of a child and a noncriminal charge of harassment as a result of the domestic dustup, which occurred at 1:55 a.m. on Sept. 1, 2010, records show.
At the time, the police confiscated a whopping 39 pistols, shotguns and rifles that D’Alauro kept in the couple’s East Northport, L.I., home.
-snip-
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/fight-wife-bars-nra-official-carrying-guns-article-1.1281540
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
sdfernando
(4,945 posts)highplainsdem
(49,041 posts)that it had been shortened before I copied and pasted it into the Source section.
I've corrected it now.
Paladin
(28,276 posts)That's one of those words that gets our resident Gun Enthusiasts bent out of shape......
If they don't want their hoard of deadly weapons to be called an arsenal, maybe they shouldn't fucking own one.
Those idiots make me sick. Dozens of murdered children, and the gun crazies' only beef is over nomenclature. "This is an assault rifle, that is not"; "Don't call my 76 rapid-fire, large-capacity-magazine, high-velocity-round rifles an 'arsenal'!" 
Paladin
(28,276 posts)
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)have to convince some people to your side.
If you don't want more change than the public is willing to accept, then it doesn't matter. Just don't turn too many people off.
Aristus
(66,467 posts)Whether I call his stash an ''arsenal", or "Daddy's Little Helpers", or whatever.
Owning 39 guns is not rational, and appeals to rationality will simply fall on deaf ears.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)I also think 39 guns for one person is an arsenal, though I did not look up the word.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)An Arsenal can also be your kitchen knife set, it is a collection of "Weapons" and thus a potential "Arsenal". Thus I do NOT have any problem with the use of the term "Arsenal" but see below for my comment on having one is signs someone is "Irrational".
happyslug
(14,779 posts)People collect guns, People collect cars, Both kill people (at present cars kill more people then guns, but that is expected to change in a few years based on current rates of change in deaths from both sources).
People even collect streetcars, a higher percentage of all streetcars have killed people then have individual guns (most guns are used once or twice a year i.e. hunting season, or at a shooting range, but streetcars could operate 12-18 hours a DAY for 20-50 years, thus it is rare to find an old streetcar that had NOT been involved in a fatal accident sometime during its career as a public carrier).
Just a comment, that collecting anything is NOT considered "Irrational" in and by itself. You may disagree with what other people may collect, but such disagreement does NOT the collector collecting irrational.
As to Streetcars and how many of them have been involved with killing people came up about 10=15 years ago when the Port Authority of Allegheny County (PAT) which runs the mass transit system for the City of Pittsburgh and its suburbs, retired its last PCC Trolley Car. It was decided to make one of the surviving PCC Trolley Cars a museum piece outside the Light Rail Vehicles (LRV) yard. A widow complained that the PCC car picked had hit her husband a few years before and he died because of being hit (He had been jogging and apparently jogged in front of the PCC Trolley and was hit). The problem was of the remaining PCCs, all had been involved in various accidents over their career making them all "Killers" in one sense or another of the word. These last PCCs had been purchased in the late 1940s and used almost constantly till retired over 50 years later. Accidents due happen (and in most of the recorded accidents the Streetcar Operator was found NOT to be at fault, you be surprise how many people run in front of buses and streetcars without looking).
My point was to point out if you want to ban something involved with the KILLING of a person, buy a use Streetcar or bus not a gun. As a generally rule if a gun is used in a Killing it is almost always destroyed, but Buses and Streetcars are used for decades afterward.
Aristus
(66,467 posts)Sorry. I'm not buying it. It doesn't pass the smell test. Intelligent people can see right through such a lame excuse. Try it on someone who is not as smart as I am...
happyslug
(14,779 posts)My comment, was that collecting anything is NOT irrational by itself. Collecting something that can kill someone is not irrational by itself (and that is the reason I brought up Streetcars, you would be surprise how many streetcars or buses were involved in fatal accidents in their years of service).
Your comment that having 39 guns showed the gun owner was irrational was what I was objecting to. Having 39 of ANYTHING does not make a person "irrational", you may find what the person is collecting strange, but by itself without something more, having 39 of anything (and thus why I used Streetcars as an example) is NOT a sign that someone is irrational.
Aristus
(66,467 posts)Owning 39 guns makes you irrational, by definition.
Anyway, I'm checking out of this thread. By posting "But cars kill people, too!", you officially lose the debate.
Sayonara...
IveWornAHundredPants
(237 posts)eom
frylock
(34,825 posts)that's all I got out your post. if people used their guns on a daily basis like they did their cars, you can fucking bet gun deaths would surpass deaths from auto accidents. and I don't mean carrying your gun around for 90 minutes a day, which is my daily commute; I mean pointing the muzzle and actuating the trigger.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Cars are regulated, checked for pollution and operation in most places once a year, maybe there should be similar regulations on weapons, good idea you have. We have rules of the road, speed limits and safety devices on vehicles. We have age limits on the age as to when a person is allowed to operate a vehicle on our roads. We have insurance requirements for vehicles and insurance requirements for license to operate the vehicles. With your comparison there needs to be regulations on weapons also, checks made to determine if person possessing a weapon is capable of operating the weapon, the person should have a license to operate whatever weapon which might be in their possession. Valid insurance should be available on every weapon presented. Checks should be required on weapons for safety operation and checks on the proper storage to prevent young ones from gaining access to them. Thanks for your comparison between vehicles and weapons.
beevul
(12,194 posts)"Cars are regulated, checked for pollution and operation in most places once a year, maybe there should be similar regulations on weapons, good idea you have."
In the United States, vehicle safety inspection and emissions inspection are governed by each state individually. 17 states have a periodic (annual or biennial) safety inspection program, while Maryland and Alabama require a safety inspection prior to registration or transfer of ownership only. Nebraska requires safety inspection only upon newly arrived vehicles which were previously registered in another state. New Jersey discontinued its passenger vehicle safety inspection program on August 1, 2010.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_inspection_in_the_United_States
So no, not in "most places", as you assert.
"We have rules of the road, speed limits and safety devices on vehicles."
None of which are required simply to own a vehicle, nor are they required for use of a motor vehicle on private property. Likewise, "rules of the road", and speed limits generally dont apply on private property.
"We have age limits on the age as to when a person is allowed to operate a vehicle on our roads."
In the public arena, yes. On private property, no.
"We have insurance requirements for vehicles and insurance requirements for license to operate the vehicles."
Again, only in the public arena, not on private property.
"With your comparison there needs to be regulations on weapons also, checks made to determine if person possessing a weapon is capable of operating the weapon, the person should have a license to operate whatever weapon which might be in their possession."
And with this license, you're for allowing people to carry these openly or concealed in public? No? Then, quite clearly, you're talking about ownership, not usage/possession in public.
"Valid insurance should be available on every weapon presented. Checks should be required on weapons for safety operation and checks on the proper storage to prevent young ones from gaining access to them."
Simply to own a firearm? Which of those things are required simply to own a car? Do you undergo a background check to own a car? Are you required to turn in your car to law enforcement if a restraining order is issued against you?
Short story: Like most do, you're comparing the usage of cars in public, with simple ownership of a firearm.
Apples and oranges.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)License and proof of insurance is required to obtain or renew ones license but my state does. In order to title a vehicle in my name I also have to show proof of insurance. In order to have my vehicle inspected I have to show proof of insurance.
As far as apples and oranges I was replying to a post where vehicles was compared to weapons.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)You are falling into a trap the NRA is ready, willing and able to spring on you. The trap being that Cars only have to be subject to Speed Limits, Safety Devices, age limits to operate and even insurance requirements if you operate that vehicle on a public road, if you keep in on your own property (or other non highway properly) those laws, requirements and regulations do NOT apply.
If you do NOT operate a vehicle on a public road you do NOT need a License nor have the vehicle licensed. No states make such a requirement for the requirement is for use on PUBLIC ROADS, not elsewhere.
States can require such licenses, safety devices, age limits and even insurance, if you want to carry weapons on your body and walk down public streets. States can even BAN such weapons to be carried on public streets.
On the other hand ownership and possession if one stays off public highways and public parks is another matter. Cars and guns are treated the same in such circumstances, nether has to be licenses, the user does NOT have to be licenses, safety equipment can be removed and even a five year old can operate a car (or shoot a gun) on private property (and even most public property that is NOT public highways or public parks) if it is permitted by the property owner (including the state) AND the five year old's parents.
In much of the Gun Debate you see certain assumptions on both sides, Gun banners tend to think in terms of urban America, where the only non-public roads and parks tend to be places of business. Urban America has a tendency to presume that they is no place where one can operate a car or a gun without being on a public highway, a public park or some place else where it is clear strong restrictions on the use of both cars and guns are needed.
Pro gunners often go into a gun debate with a similar prejudice, but in the opposite degree in that they tend to think in terms of Rural America, where use of cars and guns is permitted by anyone EXCEPT in certain limited areas where such use is regulated, i.e. Public Highways, Public Parks, Business areas, but that leaves most of rural America open to use of Vehicles and Guns by anyone without a licensee or any restrictions UNLESS they cause actual harm to someone or some property.
Notice they is a good bit of overlap of these two extremes, mostly in regard to Public Highways, Public Parks, People's homes and their yards, Business and other commercial and educational areas. The dispute is in regard to areas OUTSIDE these areas. Most anti-gunners assume they are limited or no areas outside these five areas (Public Highways, Public Parks, People's homes, Commercial areas, and Schools), while most pro-gun people assume these five areas are quite small in comparison to areas where guns and cars can be used.
In many ways, the argument reflects a Urban-Rural divide in the American Population. Not necessary if you live in an Urban or Rural Area, but your basic outlook. Rural residents tend to be more pro gun, Urban Residents tend to support more gun control.
On the other hand Rural Americas see many of the same restrictions urban Americans want on guns, and find them hard to work with in rural settings. Most farms have at least one gun, a 22 long rifle, for it is the most flexible weapons to handle varmints on the farm. Shotguns and a deer rifle (mostly for larger pests and other hunting) are also popular. Over the last 40 years I have seen a massive increase in the use of off road vehicles, unlicensed, driven by unlicensed people, no safety roll care, limited safety devices, no insurance. Not to be used on public highways (through I have seen them, but only for short distances) but increasingly popular. Why? Such vehicles permit people to go further then they could on foot.
I bring such such off road vehicles, for they reflect many of the same difference in world view that separates Urban and Rural America today. How does one interact in the environment one is in?
This Urban-Rural Divide is reflected in the laws involving Guns and Cars, if use on Public Roads, Public Parks, Commercial Areas, Homes or School, both sides will support restrictions, on the other hand outside those five areas is where the two sides separate, and where the NRA lays and wait.
You must understand the NRA over the last 40-50 years have become more and more interested in pistols (and suburban voters) then in rural or urban voters. As late as the 1960s only 10% of all firearms sold were pistols, the rest were rifles and shotguns. Today 40% of all weapons sold are pistols. Urban Americas, except those that go to rural areas to hunt, generally do NOT own firearms (and prior to the recent madness about pistols, if someone living in urban American owned a Firearm is was generally a Rifle and/or Shotgun, again for people to go hunting with during hunting season).
The NRA has concentrated on pistols over the last 40-50 years, for that is where the money is. The NRA has also concentrated on Suburbia, again that is where the money is.
Rural America has always been more willing to accept reasonable restrictions on firearms, as long it remain relatively easy for them to get rifles and shotguns. The NRA reads the FBI crimes reports and understand 68% of all murders are done with pistols, that less then 5% of all murders are done by rifles or shotguns. In fact, even with the New Town Massacre, where the shooter used an Assault Rifle killing all those children, the NATIONAL STATISTICS will show people as a whole, and children by themselves, have a higher chance of being stabbed, beaten or clubbed to death, then being killed by a Rifle or a Shotgun.
FBI crime statistics by State by type of weapon:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20
67.7% of all murders done by Firearms, 49.5% of ALL Murders are done by Pistols (73% of all Murders involving firearms). Personal Weapons (hands, fist, bring pushed) and Knives each were involved with more murders then Rifles AND Shotguns together (and Blunt Instruments, were involved in more murders then Rifles OR Shotguns, through COMBINED Rifles and Shotguns killed more Americans then did blunt instruments alone.
13.4% by knives, 13.1 unknown weapons
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-7
Weapons..............................................2007.....2008....2009....2010.....2011
Total..................................................14,916..14,224..13,752..13,164..12,664
Total firearms:.....................................10,129....9,528...9,199...8,874....8,583
Handguns.............................................7,398....6,800...6,501...6,115....6,220
Rifles......................................................453......380......351......367......323
Shotguns................................................457......442.....423.......366......356
Other guns..............................................116.......81.......96.........93.......97
Firearms, type not stated........................1,705...,825...1,828.....1,933...1,587
Knives or cutting instrument.....................1,817...1,888...1,836.....1,732...1,694
Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.)............647.....603......623.......549......496
Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)...869......875.....817........769......728
Poison.....................................................10.........9.........7..........11.........5
Explosives..................................................1.......11.........2............4.......12
Fire.......................................................131.......85........98..........78.......75
Narcotics.................................................52.......34........52..........45.......29
Drowning..................................................12.......16.........8..........10.......15
Strangulation...........................................134.......89......122........122.......85
Asphyxiation............................................109.......87........84.........98.......89
Other weapons or weapons not stated.......1,005.....999.......904.......872......853
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-offense-data
Yes, Rifles AND Shotguns (including assault rifles) kill less people then knives or clubs. Pistols are that dominate in the area of murder, involved in about 50% of all Homicides. Worse most such pistols, are owned by people who only owned one firearm, the pistol itself.
This gets me to the trap the NRA has set and many anti-gun people run right into it. They get hung up on Assault Rifles or restrictions on ALL firearms and the NRA then uses that attack as "evidence" that the left wants to take Rifles and Shotguns away from rural America. Given the nature of Rural America that is like taking away their cars, they will fight you tooth and nail.
Now what is urban, suburban and rural America is an open question. The Census bureau for example excludes "Urban Clusters" from being in Rural America, where most such "Urban Clusters" are "Urban Areas" with just over 2000 people in it, surrounded by what the Census bureau calls "Rural America". You and I would call the whole area Rural, but that is NOT the Census definitions (Some of these "Urban Clusters" can contain enough people so the County they are in meet the Census definition of "Urban County" in that 1/2 the population of the county lives in such "Urban Clusters". Several counties in California, for example, are called "Urban" by the Census due to over 50% of their population living in such "Urban Clusters", but are also miles and miles of farmland between the "Urban Clusters", so much farm land that most people going through them Call in Rural not Urban.
I bring up the above simply to show that some reports, based on the US Census Bureau Data as to the percentages of Americans who live in rural, urban and suburban America would NOT meet other people's definitions of those terms. Other definitions exist, but most have similar problems. The one I like the best, sums up the US today as being about 1/3 urban, 1/3 Rural and 1/3 Suburban. This is further complicated by the fact the US have no hard lines as to where Urban America ends, where Rural America ends and what is being in Suburbia.
I bring this up, for in many ways this 1/3. 1/3, 1/3 split in many ways sums up the Gun dispute in the US today. Urban America wants strict gun controls mostly due to the high rate of murders, mostly done by pistols, Suburban America, sees itself potential victims of such urban threats and thus oppose gun controls as to pistols, but given they that most of them have never served in the Military (and plan for their children never to do so), they have no problems with a ban on assault rifles or more restrictions on how and when weapons can be purchased as long as they can get them it they want one (and due to the drum beat of the NRA that you need to protect yourself, suburbia is where pistols sales are hot).
Rural America, like pistols (They watch the same movies as the rest of us) but also have fired them and prefer rifles and shotguns, due to greater ease of use, more accuracy, more fire power etc, Thus Rural America would accept a ban on pistols, as long as Rural America can obtain rifles and shotguns easily.
The NRA uses the threat to ban pistols to get Rural Americans to vote GOP and oppose any Gun Control. The Threat is a ban on Pistols is the first step on even more restrictions on Rifles and Shotguns. Democrats who want to win in Rural Districts have to adopt the same attitude. Democrats in Urban Areas support gun controls, for that is what they hear their constituents want, but end up supporting a ban on Assault Rifles for they do not have to votes to ban pistols, but suburban politicians would vote to ban assault weapons.
The problem is such a ban gets Rural America worried about they access to Rifles and Shotguns for most of the differences between Military and Civilian weapons are like Military vehicles and civilian vehicles, Military vehicles tend to be made to take a lot more punishment but the underlying mechanism tends to be the same basic design as in civilian cars. The same with Rifles and Shotguns, the Civilian Weapons tend to be lighter and more apt to break, but the HOW they work is the same as the Military weapons (This was one of the problems with the Assault weapons ban, Congress just could NOT define an "Assault Weapon" without outlawing what the man on the street would call a civilian weapon, HOW the weapons work were the same, the only difference were cosmetic differences due more to marketing then any real difference in how the weapon worked).
Thus, while I see rural America willing to accept a ban on Pistols, Urban America never approaches them for it requires Urban America to accept that they would be limited restrictions on Rifles and Shotguns, something a lot of Urban Politicians do NOT want to accept. The NRA sees this as they best way to defeat gun control, keeping rural and urban America at polar opposites, thus leaving the NRA and its careful catering to Suburban America to set the gun control agenda, looser rules as who can carry a pistols, increase sales of pistols, threats to rifles and shotguns via an Assault weapon ban (to keep Rural America in Line), but no real effort to work out a deal with urban America, for the NRA and its Suburban allies do NOT want a deal restricting pistols sales.
What is needed is some Urban Politician to ask for severe restrictions on pistols, but tie it in with very loose rules as to Shotguns and Rifles (including Assault rifles). Such a Politic ans would even say, given how little rifles and shotguns are used in crime, lets eliminate the ban on civilian ownership of post 1986 made automatic weapons.
In many ways the NRA, the GOP and that part of Suburbia that supports both, would hate the concept. The one thing the NRA does NOT want is open ownership of such weapon by any non-felon or mental patient. The NRA did NOT oppose the original $200 tax on such weapons passed in 1938 (When the Pay for a US Private in the US Army was $30 a month, or a dollar a day, roughly average pay at the time period, thus the $200 tax was almost a years salary of a working class person). The NRA only went through the motions to oppose continuing the tax in 1968, as part of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (The NRA even agreed to ban the sale of Rifles through the mail). The NRA, again only went through the motions to oppose the ban on purchasing any post 1986 automatic weapons when inflation had made the $200 tax, something many working class people could afford.
It should be noted, the ban on Automatic Weapons had NEVER been ruled unconstitutional, even through such weapons would be the ideal weapon for the Reserve Militia, as the term Militia is used in the Second Amendment. On the other hand the courts have ruled that the second amendment includes Pistols, which at best are marginal weapons for the Reserve Militia. Why? Because the GOP, the NRA and our "Conservative" Justices on the Supreme Court really do not fear pistols, they have Police Departments to protect them from people with pistols. Automatic Weapons could be used in a revolution that the Police may join in, and thus must be prevented from falling into the "Wrong hands".
This is one of the threads of the NRA since its foundation after US Civil War, it has always been more concerned about the wrong people getting the wrong weapons for use during disturbances, as opposed to reducing the murder rate. The NRA uses Rural American fear of the lost of its rifles and shotguns (not for revolutionary purposes but general use in rural america) to make sure restrictions on pistols for its suburban supporters are NOT banned AND the ban on Automatic Weapons stays on the books.
Scalia and his fellow right wing Judges and Justices will NEVER remove the ban on automatic weapons, for they fear such a removal could lead to problems for themselves and others of their class. Pistols do NOT scare them, Pistols are NOT weapons of Revolution but of murder.
Thus it would take an Urban Politician reaching out to Rural Voters on the Gun Control Issue. Pointing out the high rate of Murder from Pistols AND the low rate of Murder from Rifles and Shotguns. That Politician will have to say what I know people will hate to hear, but the present restrictions as to who can buy a rifle or shotgun and who they can give it away to are sufficient (Parents will want to give their 12 year old children rifles and shotguns, for that has been done for centuries in rural America). Criminals really do NOT want rifles or shotguns, they want pistols they can hide on their body and use to commit a crime. Rifles and Shotguns are to large to hide so if you have one, everyone will see it and treat the bearer with "respect" in that they would take precautions to make sure the weapon can not be used against themselves (And thus why most people do NOT carry rifles or shotguns down the streets, even in areas of the country where it is legal).
Back to the Politician. He or she will have to point out to urban America that a ban on firearms hurts rural America and as long as that is the case, such a ban will never work. On the other hand that Politician can convince urban voters that a ban on pistols is possible IF they also support making it easy for people with clean records to obtain rifles and shotguns. The Politician will then have to campaign in Rural America telling them of the high Murder rate tied in with Pistols and thus Pistols must be banned, but also point out that he or she oppose additional restrictions on Rifles and Shotguns AND he or she is willing to show that support by removing the ban on automatic weapons, given the low rate of use if any rifles or shotgun in crimes.
If asked about why the Politician supports a ban on pistols, but remove the ban on automatic weapons, point out that he or she wants to pass laws that are effective to reduce crime, not a "feel good" law that has no real effect on crime. The Politician then can go on that the reason Automatic Weapons were banned in 1938, was more to make sure the raising labor movement had no access to them, then to reduce they use in crime (Yes, I know Bonnie and Clyde preferred BARs to pistols, but as Dillinger called them, they gave bank robbers a bad name, dead shots with a BAR, one Police Officer who faced them the scariest thing he ever faced was 90 pound Bonnie running down steps, shotting her BAR in Automatic fire and apparently hitting what she was aiming at. The problem was Bonner and Clyde were the exceptions, almost every other robber used pistols).
Newtown was another exception, the Killer knew how to use his AR-15. He knew how it operated and if it mis-functioned, he knew how to clear it, unlike the Colorado Movie House Shooter whose AR-15 jammed on him, thus he had to resort to pistols to do his killing. Yes Automatic weapons can be deadly, but being huge, makes then unlikely to be used.
The Politician should point out, you do NOT make Law based on exceptions, but on actual statistics. New Town and Bonnie and Clyde were exceptions to the rule that Murders prefer pistols. The Assassinations of the 1960s, again were exceptions, JFK was killed by a bolt action rifle, Martin Luther King by a Lever action rifle but Robert Kennedy and George Wallace were attacked by pistols (as was Reagan). Malcolm X was killed by pistols and a sawed off shotgun (which had been illegal since 1938 and its size made it more pistol size then shotgun size, thus I have no problem retaining the 1938 regulations as to how short such a weapon can be in terms of barrel length and overall length, for shotguns that is an 18 inch barrel, 26 inches overall, thus anything smaller can be called a "Pistol" and banned, Rifle can have barrels as short as 16 inches).
Just a comment on the dispute as to firearms and how best to get a handle on the use of firearms in crime. The best way to make sure what ever law is passed would be effective in reducing crime is to look at the historical record. Pistols are involved with 68% of all Murders, but rifles or shotguns less the 5%.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Enjoys consuming game. I currently live in urban area but lived many years in rural area. The main purpose of my original post was to point out in the comparison of vehicles there are rules and regulations. I will not fall into the senseless NRA madness and this is becoming evident of lack of control of senseless weapons and improper storage allowing those to obtain weapons they are incapable of handling, whether household members or gun dealers. When NRA can produce means of mass killings then perhaps I may tolerate their group but putting guns everywhere is not the answer, it violates my liberty to move freely. Hunters looking for game to consume does not need a high capacity weapon, they know how to hit their target. It may not happen for a few years but we will continue to work towards sensible weapons. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!!;;
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)....because they're paranoid about the government coming to get them?
Kitchen knives and cars are not arsenals because they are not weapons. They can be misused and become weapons, but a gun IS a weapon.... even if you use it for a paper weight...it's STILL a weapon. Kitchen knives, cars, and paper weights for that matter, MUST BE MISUSED to be a weapon. Not so, a gun. When someone kills a bunch of children with a gun, he has used the gun efficiently and well.
Period.
You gun nuts know this too. Stop pretending you don't.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)
Iggo
(47,571 posts)
Paladin
(28,276 posts)A large collection of weapons, normally is considered an Arsenal...just sayin!
Paladin
(28,276 posts)But the word tends to set off the local pro-gun crowd; kind of surprised they haven't weighed in, as yet.....
frylock
(34,825 posts)sensitive bunch that they are.
Paladin
(28,276 posts)Go figure---they pretend that they're persecuted, but the gun restrictions have been so light in the U.S. for so many years, they have to gripe about how fucked up the restrictive laws are in other countries---the United Kingdom being a prime target.....
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
JoeBlowToo
(253 posts)It's a step toward removing firearms from the mentally unbalanced.
derby378
(30,252 posts)When my wife and I had disagreements, we talked it out. Remember talking?
That said, snarkiness in 5...4...3...2...1...
libodem
(19,288 posts)Is bad form. Bet a lot of US households live in terror of a tyrant with a hand gun.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)that this guy brandished weapons during domestic disputes? I'm interested in this case but didn't see that mentioned.
libodem
(19,288 posts)Maybe he just threatened her otherwise. We always had hunting rifles and a shotgun in our home but it wasn't until the divorce proceedings, that my ex bought a hand gun.
I'm glad they are taking the guns whether he brandished or not.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)"Brandishing weapons"
I'll bet the argument started like this:
"God Damit! Get all these friggin' guns off the bed!!!!!"
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)
bluedigger
(17,087 posts)What he isn't, is a gun possessor, which is no doubt a great relief to his immediate family.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)in a post-apocalypse scenario?
bluedigger
(17,087 posts)Why have personal arsenals if you don't intend to arm fellow travelers? They can't all be hoarders. 
Snake Plissken
(4,103 posts)so he's still 'law-abiding' according to the NRA's definition, he's just no longer a gun owner.
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)the NRA has a notoriously racist history, so i doubt they give a shit about black people killing each other.
The Magistrate
(95,255 posts)A good start for a list of people psychologically unfit for gun ownership would be the roster of NRA officials, and the membership list of the organization.
Progressive dog
(6,920 posts)HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)to think I used live about 15 miles from this guy. He needed all those guns to protect his family (sic) from all those "bad guys" with guns in Northport? Or maybe he needed them for all the wildlife or to go hunting on Long Island?
No, I would not want to live next door to a person like him. I wish his wife nothing but good luck. She must have been scared to death living in a home like that.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)
IveWornAHundredPants
(237 posts)which is indeed a silly word, or the idea it's trying to convey, which is that 39 guns is a fuck of a lot of guns?
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)The editorial use of whopping to describe such a collection is ridiculous.
IveWornAHundredPants
(237 posts)I think that's a hell of a lot of popguns myself, and so would most. I understand there are collectors who like beautiful old handcrafted objets, but I think that's a different mindset than "just likes guns." That's the mentality that baffles me.
The Magistrate
(95,255 posts)If that is a typical hoard of guns, the number of gun owners must be a good deal less than commonly claimed.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)What difference does it make if someone has more than two firearms?
Paladin
(28,276 posts)
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)No way!
valerief
(53,235 posts)Lately.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,169 posts)Oh, how inhumane.
jpak
(41,760 posts) super
(2 posts)Totally agree, let's just hope this guy doesn't hurt anyone in the future...he's already got a track record of abuse etc... These are the kinda people that make us honest people look bad!
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)SleeplessinSoCal
(9,145 posts)And flying out of Newark, NJ didn't spare you from NY state laws forbidding handguns. We tried to transport one back to CA and nearly got busted. Quick thinking was all that saved my husband from an arrest.
Turbineguy
(37,372 posts)How will he solve a problem? How will he be able to tell if he got the correct change at a coffeshop without a gun? How will he remember to pull up his fly without a gun? He'll be completely lost!
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)
idwiyo
(5,113 posts) 
Kablooie
(18,641 posts)
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)