Friday, January 23, 2009

And we have a winner!

From NY Magazine:

At a press conference at noon today, Governor Paterson will announce that he's chosen Kirsten Gillibrand to replace Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the Senate. Gillibrand is a 42-year-old U.S. Representative from upstate who is a centrist backed by the National Rifle Association. The choice has already angered some more liberal members of the state party, and at least one fellow Democrat has vowed to run against her in 2010. But Paterson's decision — finally made, according to the Times, at 2 a.m. this morning — was calculated to actually win himself support, from upstate voters and women, who he'll need in order to be reelected in 2010.

Hey, at least this one's from New York!

46 comments:

georgetheatheist said...

www.nra.org

italian girl said...

www.nra.org


george's response to......

everything.

Anonymous said...

Aha! George has located his script!

-Joe said...

YEAH I CANT F_ BELEIVE IT !!!
We got out first female pro second amendment politition

This is a big day !

-Joe
www.nra.org

Frank said...

I'm a life member of the NRA but I'm not a Republican. I'm so glad to finally have a Democrat in office who has a sane take of firearms.

Frank said...

Err, I mean "on firearms". Doh!

italian girl said...

What's with the obsession with firearms? Are we living in the wilderness?

Chris said...

Hey im glad shes a moderate,that will balance ole chucky out.

Anonymous said...

it has nothing to do with hunting. I'd suggest you read the entire Federalist Papers. It makes it really clear what the 2nd Amendment is really about. It's about the citizens of this country being well enough armed that if necessary, they can overthrow the Government.

We'll get the ususal arguments now about "Muskets vs M-16s", and I will point out that the Founding Fathers had no problem with Citizens owning full up manned warships (the atomic bomb of the era). If you could afford to buy and man one, they had no problems, and in fact, they HIRED them to work for the Gov't - see Privateers.

italian girl said...

"it has nothing to do with hunting"

My question was a rhetorical one.

"...It's about the citizens of this country being well enough armed that if necessary, they can overthrow the Government."

WHAT???? That's why you want to have a gun?

The founding fathers also didn't have to deal with the amount of people we have today living in big cities on top of one another.

More guns = More trouble

Anonymous said...

None of you clowns with a gun or two is going to be able to overthrow the mighty military-industrial machine we have built up since WWII in this country. Even if 15 or 30 of you got together. That's a joke.

Nope, guns at this point, as Italian Girl points out, are more likely than not to lead to trouble. What are the most recent "armed citizens" stories you can think of? Virginia Tech? The department store in Omaha, NE?

georgetheatheist said...

Imagine if that 86 year old black woman in Jamaica who was being smothered by an intruder had a pistola under her pillow? Perhaps she could have eliminated that piece of vermin.

Anonymous said...

I don't want to own a gun, but I want the CHOICE to own one. (sound familiar?)

ew-3 said...

IG "More guns = More trouble" is just too naive. Just look at what is happening in England. There will always be violence.
And yes, if you were to study history, particularly American history during the revolutionary era, you'd appreciate why these classically educated men believed in something like the 2nd ammendment. They understood the nature of man. They understood far better then the pablum filled morons that pass for our leaders.
Thomas Jefferson, perhaps the most brilliant man of his era said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
I want the 2nd ammendment to stay as it was intended, not for me, but for my children and their children. Our country is headed down a dangerous path. The power of the govenment has grown 3 or 4 fold just in my lifetime. And that is accelerating with the influx of people that are not even familiar with our heritage. They don't value the rights we earned the hard way.
And as to more guns = more trouble, ask that question to the Polish people when Hitler was around. Ask that of the Czechs, the Jews, the Gypsies, the blacks, the slavs etc...

italian girl said...

Thomas Jefferson also dealt with a far different society and citcumstances than we have today. For one, we have far many more people who are far diverse in their cultures and backgrounds. Diverse populations especially in big cities all armed as you would like them is a recipe for diaster. And ew-3, maybe having a bigger government sticking their nose in everyone's business is exactly what we need. We all saw how not regulating Wall Street was a huge mistake. Americans need a higher entity governing them. We can't take matters into our own hands. Do you honestly believe that if Jews had been armed, they could have overthrown the Nazi party? That's naive.

georgetheatheist said...

"Americans need a higher entity governing them."

You see why I refer to her as Italian "girl"?

And that's being kind.

ew-3 said...

IG - The times may have been different for TJ, but the people weren't. A study of the classics teaches us that people do not change. They are still driven by the same motives. The seven deadly sins of old are still around. While NYC has changed since I grew up in it, the people haven't. Maybe their language has, perhaps their color, but they still motivated the way we all are. It hasn't changed since the Greeks first codified it.
"maybe having a bigger government sticking their nose in everyone's business is exactly what we need."
Is suspect Ben Franklin, another of the geniuses would disagree. To quote - "those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither"
It was greed that brought down wall st. (re the 7 deadly sins.) But it also the greed for power that had Senator Dodd and Congressman Frank to prevent legislation that would have stopped the practice of sub primte loans.
As to the Jews in Hitler's day, let's just say it would have been a lot more difficult for him to have done what he did. Do you think a Jewish father would not try to fight for his family know when the gestapo was coming to take his family away. study up on the maccabees.

Anonymous said...

Imagine if that 86 year old black woman in Jamaica who was being smothered by an intruder had a pistola under her pillow?

Yes, I imagine an 86-year-old woman of any race getting the pistola yanked right out of her arthritic (or just plain weak) hand, and used against her. IF she was flexible and dextrous enough to get her arm up and behind her head in the first place.

Nice try.

Anonymous said...

If a criminal thinks a pistol may be in the house and that the owner may use it against him, he'll move onto another house. Since we live in a communist city that doesn't allow its populace to arm itself against criminals, everyone is a target.

italian girl said...

ew-3, but don't you agree that allowing every citizen who wishes to bear arms in this city, for instance, would be diastrous? I suspect people in colonial times were much more respectful of authority (and no I don't mean British), more law-abiding and more God-fearing. What was the entire population for the 13 colonies? Maybe 2,000,000? NYC's population alone is about 9,000,000. I think it does make a difference. The founding fathers had a different country on their hands. We are NOT the same as the people of that time. We are too diverse. And with that diversity comes hatred and possibly violence.

What brought down Wall Street was a lack of a watchful eye. No one was looking and they took advantage. I suspect most people would have done the same thing in their situation. We're all greedy in one degree or another. It sure is nice to see those folks eat some humble pie, though.

Was it possible that Dodd and Frank were being manipulated by the Bush administration?

I agree had the Jews been armed it would have been harder, but would have done any good? They had an army. The Jews were just regular citizens. They would have been the losers anyway. It's a shame so may Nazis got away with their crimes and were never brought to justice.

And to my friend georgie,

tell the truth, do you have a lot of problems with women?

ew-3 said...

"Was it possible that Dodd and Frank were being manipulated by the Bush administration?"

That may go down as one of the funniest things I've ever read.
Barney Frank is just left of Mao. (Newton is about 15 miles from where I live. BTW - his ex lover, Herb Moses was a Director at Fannie Mae during the time Fannie Mae was trying to reduce regulations. This was during the Clinto admin.)

More later, dinner time..

italian girl said...

Actually that was a real, sincere question. I don't know too much about how Dodd and Frank are intertwined in the sub-prime mess. Bt I do think there are a lot of people who've got blood on their hands with that whole thing. Sorry, I have a strong tendency to blame everything on George W. Bush and his administration.

ew-3 said...

IG - just so you know there was no offense intended, I can be rather acerbic at times ;)

As to everyone having a gun being a problem, all I can say is no. There are plenty of statistics out there that show states with the most lax gun laws (particularly carry permits) are less violent. Self defense does work. How often do the police PREVENT crime. I prefer to have the option of defending myself from someone who has already decided to break the law. The bad guys already have guns and they will always have guns.

As to the anon poster about not being able to defeat our own military if needed, fact is an armed population can in fact defeat a superpower. While we did not lose, the Vietnamese held us off to defeat the will of the weak back home. Even with all our modern firepower, 50 million americans with guns can stop our own military if needed. And if you think that could never be necessary, I suggest your education of history is lacking.

italian girl said...

But ew-3, don't you think in many situations, the very gun I've bought to protect myself can be used against me? After all, we are not all police officers who get regular training iin the use of their firearm.

For example, I've got a gun in my bag. I'm walking alone at 11 pm to my car and a guy comes up behind me and throws me down and away from my bag. Now what? If he opens my bag to rob me or worse, won't he see my weapon?

Another example: Many years ago my mother had just come home from shopping around 8 pm. She went into her bedroom and found a kid who had entered from the window and managed to disconnect the phone, put on the bathroom light and open a few dresser drawers. She began screaming her head off and that's when the kid jumped out the window. Lucky for her and lucky for all of us who were in the house. What that kid didn't know was that my father had his gun (he was in law enforcement) in a box with a child-proof lock on it(my brother was fascinated by it). So when my dad heard there was someone in his bedroom, he started yelling to get his gun. I can't even begin to tell you of the chaos that erupted once the screaming began. All told, he wasn't able to get the gun because it was in very room that the kid was in. And even if he got to it, he'd have to find the keys to open the locks and get his bullets which if I remember, knowing him, were all in different places. A gun could be useful in protecting your family if you are able to access it.

Police told us some time after(he was caught later that night) that we were very lucky because he had a hammer.

ew-3 said...

IG - I understand the emotional appeal of your argument.

In your example where someone comes up behind you at 11PM and knocks you to the ground. How do more gun laws help you? If anything you won't have a gun and the attacker will. Anyone that would do this to you could care less about gun laws.

But what will make you safer is that the perp does not know how in the area is armed. If even 1 in 10 in NYC had a carry permit, crime would drop like a rock. The perps would never know who had a weapon and would be afraid to attack. Perps are bullies. They do not stand up to equals. And still you have the option not to carry if that is your inclination.

Your personal experience is a bit more complicated, so I need to give it a decent response.

But in logic, arguing from a particular situation to a general conclusion is totally invalid.

It is one of the easiests way to spot a poor argument. My other favorite is to catch anyone that says always or never. Absolute positive or negatives are almost never correct.

(I have a classical education, courtesy of the NYC public school system)

georgetheatheist said...

Italian 'girl" sez: "...do you have a lot of problems with women?"

Not at all, just non compos mentis "puellae".

Anonymous said...

There are plenty of statistics out there that show states with the most lax gun laws (particularly carry permits) are less violent.

Texas?

As to the anon poster about not being able to defeat our own military... if you think that could never be necessary, I suggest your education of history is lacking.

Never said it mightn't be necessary, just that it was not going to happen with a small ragtag band of proud gun owners. Get 50 million together, as you propose, and it might be a different story. Might. But with a budget of (what is it now?...) $400B? $500B? the DoD would be quite the formidable opponent. And while unfamiliar terrain was an obstacle in Vietnam and to some extent in Afghanistan, this is home turf for all.

Look, I understand the 2nd amendment argument. Tyranny freaks me out, too. But while I've heard of all kinds of senseless murders at the hands of loonies who should never have been allowed to own firearms, to my knowledge no modern militia has ever overthrown the U.S. government.

Anonymous said...

ew-3: There are plenty of statistics out there that show states with the most lax gun laws (particularly carry permits) are less violent.

Actually, the reverse seems to be the case. South Carolina and Florida top the FBI's list of most violent crimes per 100,000 population, and they both have very lax gun laws. They also happen to both be "castle doctrine" states, meaning I can shoot you preemptively just for stepping on my property when I don't want you here.

So, uh... there goes that argument.

Anonymous said...

Throwing that stat out is meaningless. How many of those crimes were committed with guns and with legal ones to boot?

italian girl said...

hey georgie,

I take it that's a yes.

italian girl said...

ew-3:

In my example, how do less gun laws help me? If the perp knocks me down and away from my bag(holding my gun), what's the use? And even if residents in the area are armed, how many do you think would actually come out to help? My guess is none. If I'm lucky, they'll call 911. I try not to be cynical, but from my experience neighbors tend to hide when there's trouble. Very few people would be willing to risk their neck to save someone else unless they happen to be in law enforcement.

"perp"? - Now ew-3, don't mean to be nosey but are you a cop?

ew-3 said...

Nope IG - not a cop, but grew up with several people who went on to where blue. One has been a friend for 40 years. His older brother made made Deputy Inspector. Now his son is on the force, like his dad, his uncle and his grandfather.

IG - in your example, less gun laws would help you because other citizens woud not be as hesitant to help you and get involved.

The reason most people don't help victims of crime is because they do not feel empowered. By the same token having a gun is what makes the perp feel empowered.

Time we put the power back in the hands of the good guys.

Not sure you are old enough to remember Bernard Goetz, the so called subway vigilante. Right after the incident subway violence went down. It scared the perps. And a scared perp is a good perp.

Jason in Kew Gardens said...

"In my example, how do less gun laws help me? If the perp knocks me down and away from my bag(holding my gun), what's the use?"

A purse is not a holster.

italian girl said...

ew-3:

You make a pretty strong argument. This topic will be debated until the end of time. It should be interesting to see how this plays out in the Obama administration.

Jason:

Are you suggesting I wear a holster? I hope not because it really doesn't go with any of my outfits.
:)

Anonymous said...

Throwing that stat out is meaningless. How many of those crimes were committed with guns and with legal ones to boot?

Huh?
Meaningless in what way? In a "published statistic that runs counter to your position" sort of way?

ew-3 asserted thus: "There are plenty of statistics out there that show states with the most lax gun laws (particularly carry permits) are less violent." Nothing in that quote limited this "less violent" condition to crimes committed with legal guns.

I was just showing that the statistics seem to show the reverse, that the states with the most lax gun laws are actually the MOST violent. If my stat doesn't support that, what would?

If ew-3 (or you, fellow anon) cares to produce statistics that support the ew position, I'm sure we'd all love to see me disproved.

Anonymous said...

A pretty strong argument?? ew-3 claims the existence of statistics that are mysteriously never produced (not to mention easily refuted by the commonest of measures). And then...

ew-3: "But in logic, arguing from a particular situation to a general conclusion is totally invalid."

ew-3: "Not sure you are old enough to remember Bernard Goetz, the so called subway vigilante. Right after the incident subway violence went down."

ew-3 said...

Let's start with this stat that I just ran across - From the US dept of justice. http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/guns.htm

"According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%"

Doesn;t say much for gun laws.

Anonymous said...

... the source of the gun was from -
a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

Doesn;t say much for gun laws.


You're correct. It says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about gun laws. What states? What laws in effect? We don't know! And aggregating "family and friends" with "street buy and illegal source" sure confounds any attempt to interpret the poll intelligently.
Not good logical practice.

You have yet to conjure any of the plentiful statistics you claim clearly link lax gun laws with less violence.

ew-3 said...

80% got their guns through non-traditonal (i.e. other then legal) methods. In otherwords 80% didn't pay attention to your precious gun laws. Doesn't matter what state, this is a nationwide statistic.

"You have yet to conjure any of the plentiful statistics you claim clearly link lax gun laws with less violence."

And that statistics that back your conjecture?

ew-3 said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

The two states with just about the most lax gun laws are at the bottom of the list of violent crimes.

If you think tight guns laws help, travel to DC, Phila, Detroit etc.

Anonymous said...

True dat!

I was an undisclosed neighborhood about 5 years ago
when my "companion" pointed out a corner "store" where (if properly introduced and had the cash) I might buy drugs, a girl or a gun or whatever my heart, veins, nose (or penis) desired!

There ain't no real gun control
anyway only penalties (3 years in prison for carrying one illegally).

And if I'm likely to need a "piece"
to protect me from an invading intruder then I've failed to protect my perimeter first
(which happens to be standard military operating procedure).

Ahem-m-m-m...and if I might be paranoid about the government suddenly "collecting" my legal firearm from me...then I shouldn't obtain it legally in the first place. No?

C'mon....too many guns
makes for a lot of boastful careless behavior and a lot of fatal accidents.

Look before you leap!

-Joe said...

Very few people would be willing to risk their neck to save someone else
---------------------

I have around 6 under my belt and i'm not in law enforcement.
3 purse snatches, 2 robbers and a rapist.

In Ridgewood we had a saying.
"They always run south"

Italian girl, I'd take you to the firing range and dinner if you like, its a lot of fun.
Is it a date ?


BTW: They have designer ankle and side holsters now. You don’t have to carry cannon for defense.
"Wardrobe"...hmm you must be pretty hot !!

Statistics have it armed civilians catch or "take out" the most violent criminals not the cops.

The cops dont protect people, they protect property and give out tickets & $$ money making DWI's.

Anonymous said...

80% got their guns through non-traditonal (i.e. other then legal) methods. In otherwords 80% didn't pay attention to your precious gun laws.

ew-3... you're not reading carefully, and you're only seeing what you want to see. The burden of proof is on YOU here, since you brashly asserted that lax gun laws correlate with less violence.

That 80% aggregates guns received from "friends and family" with those obtained by "street sale or illegally." Until those are pulled apart, we don't know how many were illegal. Can't know. And which states DOES matter... how many times do you have to be reminded of your own argument: lax gun laws leads to less violence? So we're looking at individual states and their separate laws.

I think the only person you've convinced is george, and he's already drunk the nra koolaid.

C'mon.
Cough up the clear proof you purportedly had in hand.

The two states with just about the most lax gun laws are at the bottom of the list of violent crimes.

And, let me remind you AGAIN: the two MOST VIOLENT states - Florida and South Carolina - also have extremely LAX GUN LAWS, and moreover have "castle doctrine," which leads to lots of people being pre-emptively murdered.

Even the wikipedia article you were trying to link to - Gun violence in the United States - fails to support you: "Research and statistics have shown that guns intensify crime situations, and increase the likelihood of a more violent or lethal outcome."

(By the way, a wiki article on "gun violence in the u.s. might be okay for a JHS essay, but it doesn't qualify as adult-level research.)

italian girl said...

-Joe said...
"Italian girl, I'd take you to the firing range and dinner if you like, its a lot of fun.
Is it a date ?"

A DATE???? Are you joking?

How do you know I'm not some 500 lb. girl with a beard?

Anonymous said...

ew-3?
ew-3?
Where are you?

We're still waiting for those condemning statistics of yours. You know, the ones that prove that making guns easier to acquire will somehow reduce the number of homicidal maniacs wielding guns?

Must be at the library today.

Anonymous said...

hey ridgewoodian, why post anonymously. we missed you