New gun regulations the beginning of the end of our freedom
If you can redefine a common semiautomatic rifle with a detachable box magazine as an “assault weapon,” then you can redefine any semi-automatic firearm with a detachable magazine as an “assault weapon.” Never mind that the term only applies to an unavailable, but fully automatic military weapon.
If you can redefine (and ban) the “ugly rifle” on cosmetic features as described above, then you can redefine (and ban) any bolt-action hunting rifle as a “sniper rifle” used only to kill people.
If you can redefine the national and world standard for sporting arms magazines to something no one manufactures, then you can change it again later to another arbitrary and capricious value.
If you can interfere with sporting goods businesses and disrupt interstate commerce, then you can harass and disrupt any legal business that you don’t like.
If you force registration on the owners of some guns, then you can force it on the owners of all guns.
If you want universal background checks to work, then all guns must be registered — an impossible task in any county, state, country, continent, or world. Evil people will still exist and perpetrate crimes. Can you ban the jawbone of an ass?
If all guns are registered, then you have the means to confiscate them.
If you can confiscate common legal guns and accessories without compensation or consideration, then you can seize anyone’s property, at any time, for any reason.
If you threaten more gun laws, then you get the unintended(?) consequences of increased gun sales to people who may not have been all that interested in the first place.
If you succeed in disrupting the markets (albeit a self-inflicted response to state actions), and threaten serious criminal penalties for traditional, legal gun use, then perhaps the 559,000 New York licensed hunters will save $100 or more and stay home?
If the hunters boycott New York state, will the DEC funding that is solely provided for by license sales be picked up by the sponsors of this legislation?
If “the people” resist the actions of “the state” (read: follow democratic legal processes), then the state can redefine them as “extremists” or even “terrorists.”
If you can release pistol permit records to the public, even though it serves no common good, then you can release all gun owner registration records for the benefits of hate groups and burglars.
If you can retroactively terminate a permit that is clearly “valid until revoked,” then you are burdening the county governments with unnecessary review of lawful citizens and extorting fees for retention of lawful, valuable property.
If you can target and criminalize millions of people in New York, who have done nothing wrong because of their possessions, then you can criminalize anyone and anything: smokers, the obese, motorcyclists, sports cars, large sodas, veterans — or how about simply the pursuit of happiness? How did that Prohibition thing work out? It sparked the largest crime wave in U.S. history, caused senseless death and destruction, all of which ended with the repeal of prohibition.
If the government can demonize a group of honest, hard-working citizens for the actions of the criminals and the insane that the government knew of and failed to control, then they can stick a label on anyone, deny them their civil rights, and seize their property. Was the Republican “enemy combatant” labeling and detention of U.S. citizens constitutional? Why are the actions of the Democrats any less egregious?
If the government has failed to keep criminals in jail and illegal immigrants and terrorists out of the country, then who are they to tell the rest of us how to live and yet still blame the rest of us for their shortcomings?
If you are against real gun violence, then you must also be against the “make believe” violence in the movies, the news, and especially on TV.
Media displays of gratuitous and unsafe gunplay as a solution to life’s problems must stop. What are you teaching impressionable young minds and others who hate us? The news media, our unofficial fourth branch of government, has devolved from muckraking into yellow journalism calculated to pander to and play off people’s fears and prejudice in order to make money and boost ratings. Detailed news portrayal of criminals’ lives gives these losers the glory and attention they seek. With power comes responsibility for the greater good. Has that been lost?
If liberals claim to be the group of tolerance and acceptance, then why are they the “hate group” now?
If you can make a mockery of one item in the Bill of Rights, then how long will it be before the others fall?
If you can do the above with no improvements in public health, safety,or security, then what have you achieved besides dragging our state down?
If the information society has allowed people to become so self-centered (via the me-phone, me-pad, me-pod) as to not even greet one another on the street, then how can they have any consideration for others not exactly like themselves? We will become a successful society again only when we realize we really do need each other.
Scotia charging town too little for fire service
The April 30 article on Glenville’s contract with the village of Scotia is misleading, inaccurate and misses the main political point.
1) The [approximately] $418,000 figure is beside the point and should not be the basis of any rational comparison. It has nothing to do with the cost of the Scotia Fire Department. The total cost is over $1.5 million annually when employee benefits are allocated.
The Glenville contract surely represents a major portion of the contract revenue, but hardly a big piece of total expenditures. This is inaccurate and misleading.
2) A real investigative report would also note that this new contract charges contract customers even less based on assessed value than village residents get charged through the village tax rate.
This is an outrage initiated in the early 2000s by Republican village trustee Armon Benny in support of town government. The new contract exacerbates this inequality. Typically, municipalities place a surcharge on services provided outside their boundaries, not a bargain rate.
Now a $100,000 assessed house in the town will pay even lower costs for fire protection than a $100,000 house in the village. Village residents should not stand by and bear the extra burden of bargain rates offered outside the village limits. What municipal body can survive treating its taxpayers this way?
The same rate logic should apply to the thousands of village sewer and water contract customers outside the village.
The writer is the former mayor of Scotia.
What was name of dishonest informant?
I noticed the Gazette’s April 30 article [“Shopkeeper’s drug charges dropped”] mentioned by name a store owner who had been framed by a “confidential informant” who worked for the police.
Though it is alleged that the informant lied and used planted evidence to frame the store owner, the store owner’s name and business have been hurt from the charges (since dropped), while the informant’s name is protected.
How is this just?
The Gazette wants your opinions on public issues.
There is no strict word limit, though letters under 200 words are preferred.
All letters are subject to editing for length, style and fairness, and we will run no more than one letter per month from the same writer.
Please include your signature, address and day phone for verification.
For information on how to send, see bottom of this page.
For more letters, visit our Web site: www.dailygazette.com.