PDA

View Full Version : Pittsburgh Stealers



Djfan
05-11-2009, 11:46 AM
http://www.nranews.com/blogarticle.aspx?blogPostId=517


5/11/2009

We warned the Pittsburgh City Council what would happen if they insisted on passing an unconstitutional and unenforceable city ordinance designed to criminalize gun owners who are victims of burglaries. We told them that state law in Pennsylvania prohibits local municipalities from setting their own gun-control laws. The city council and Mayor Luke Ravenstahl didn't listen.

That's why the NRA's filed suit in Pittsburgh. We're going to overturn the "lost or stolen" ordinance that would criminalize legal gun owners who are the victims of burglary, while doing absolutely nothing to target the illegal firearms traffickers operating inside the city limits.

Pittsburgh's politicians say they want to get tough on crime. They could start by going after the people who steal guns from the law-abiding, instead of turning the law-abiding into criminals. In the meantime, the city council will continue to protect the stealers, and the NRA will defend the legal gun owners and their Second Amendment rights.

snarky
05-11-2009, 12:43 PM
Interesting.

I notice the NRA doesn't really explain how the law would "criminalize gun owners who are victims of burglaries". That which is argued without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. But I digress.

Personally I have no problem with people keeping guns in their homes but guns are like anything else -- with freedom comes a measure of responsibility. In the wrong hands, guns which were yesterday sitting innocently in somebody's closet can present a danger to the community today. I feel society (particularly in densely populated areas) has a right to demand that those who choose to possess firearms do so responsibly; and in this case the jurisdiction in question has decided that it wants/needs information about firearms that appear to have fallen into the wrong hands. Whether or not that violates state law is up to the courts. But it seems a tad hyperbolic on the part of the NRA when they claim that this was "designed to criminalize gun owners who are victims of burglaries"

Djfan
05-11-2009, 06:16 PM
Snarky,

There is so much to love about your post. I love the avatar. I have spent the last few years as a math teacher - I may have told you that - and with I had one.

The other is your sig. Great quote. I remember the article. It still makes me laugh.

As for the other part, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, those people who have their guns stolen, and when these guns are used in crimes after they are stolen, the owner from whom it is stolen would be liable.

As a gun owner myself, I use safes, ammo in different room, and nothing loaded. Is that responsible? I take the responsibility upon myself. Still, I could be stolen from.

MeetJoeGreene
05-12-2009, 11:22 AM
This really doesn't surprise me.

What is scary is that this course will probably be appealed (either way) to the Supreme Court. If it hits the Supreme Court after Obama picks his justice, it won't bode well for gun owners.

snarky
05-12-2009, 01:32 PM
DJ, as I understand it the law would require gun owners to notify the police when a gun is lost or stolen. End of. I don't see how that would criminalize gun owners. But I'm open to reading an explanation.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the NRA routinely argue that the real problem with guns is when they fall into the hands of criminals? Well if a gun is stolen, wouldn't that count?


If it hits the Supreme Court after Obama picks his justice, it won't bode well for gun owners.

Why? I simply don't understand this statement. What would be the ramifications for gun owners?

Djfan
05-14-2009, 09:26 AM
Snarky,

You may be right. But if so, that law is already in place in some states. I can't imagine that this law would upset gun owners. As a gun owner I would want a law like that.

As for the Obama SC appointee comment, you can bet that his appointee will be liberal. And that as a liberal he/she will be anti gun ownership. That is the presupposition.

stlrz d
05-14-2009, 09:34 AM
Snarky,

You may be right. But if so, that law is already in place in some states. I can't imagine that this law would upset gun owners. As a gun owner I would want a law like that.

As for the Obama SC appointee comment, you can bet that his appointee will be liberal. And that as a liberal he/she will be anti gun ownership. That is the presupposition.

Not all liberals are anti gun ownership.

Don't paint with such a broad brush my friend. :)

bostonsteeler
05-14-2009, 11:06 AM
Liberal and not anti-gun here.
I'm opposed to unrestricted ownership of assault weapons, bazookas and suchlike that the NRA thinks every illiterate nut on the street must have free right to possess.
There's a difference between owning a .38 for self defense or a shotgun for hunting and owning an AK56..

stlrz d
05-14-2009, 11:18 AM
Liberal and not anti-gun here.
I'm opposed to unrestricted ownership of assault weapons, bazookas and suchlike that the NRA thinks every illiterate nut on the street must have free right to possess.
There's a difference between owning a .38 for self defense or a shotgun for hunting and owning an AK56..

That's about the way I see it. Believing any schmoe should be able to buy anything that fires a round is as extreme as believing no citizen should own any guns.

I also think open carry is fine, but concealed carry is just asking for trouble. Where weapons can be carried is an issue too, imo. I know a guy who lives Tennessee and who is in favor of CCW, but not in bars, like TN allows. He said the number of shootings in bars has gone up considerably. The most recent incident he told me about was two guys arguing about a parking space outside a bar. Tempers flared and one guy got shot over a parking space.

He said he only goes to establishments that prominently display a "no guns allowed" sign. Guns and alcohol, like motor vehicles and alcohol, simply shouldn't mix.

snarky
05-14-2009, 11:18 AM
I'm very liberal and as I have said I have no problem with gun ownership.

As for why gun owners are getting upset over it I have no idea. Pick any law that goes on the books and somebody will be upset with it -- that doesn't mean a law is flawed.

And all I have seen in this thread are complaints by the NRA which, more or less, is to second amendment what the ACLU is to the first.

snarky
05-14-2009, 11:42 AM
I've driven across the US and halfway across Canada and one thing that has always struck me driving through places Western Oregon, parts of Ontario, Northern Utah and Wyoming is that you have to be completely self-sufficient to live in some places. And that includes protection of your personal safety. So in more rural areas, I think gun ownership is a near necessity.

On the other end of the extreme you have places like NYC where you have I don't know how many people packed onto an island. NY is great but can be stressful. In terms of public safety I think it's far better if people walk around unarmed. As in the example you gave, if folks in NY were armed people would get shot over who was fist in line at the ATM.

So net-net I think it's better to not allow people to walk the streets of NY with a gun in a holster unless they are a licensed professional (like a bodyguard). Unfortunately the implications are that gun owners who could carry in the interest of self-protection without incident would not be allowed to do so. Like I say it's unfortunate but it's far better, IMO, than allowing the guy who would shoot somebody over a parking space to walk around packin'.

I think part of the problem with gun laws today is that things have changed drastically since the constitution was written. The weapons that people have access to are a lot more deadly (How long did it take to fire off a second round in 1787?) and the situations in which most people live has also changed a great deal. Cities are much more densely packed and it is much easier to summon police in the event of a physical emergency.

So all that said, I fully and 100% support the rights of individuals to own guns and keep them in their residence for physical security and also for the reason (which is a subtext of the second amendment) that living in a free society means citizens should have a means to defend themselves from an oppressive government should one arise. But in terms of random citizens walking around armed in a city or town fully armed, I'm not convinced that is universally appropriate and my personal opinion is that it would best be left up to the community.

Djfan
05-14-2009, 04:20 PM
Not all liberals are anti gun ownership.

Don't paint with such a broad brush my friend. :)

I wasn't. It wasn't my statement. I was clearing it up for him by explaining the supposition in the other statement.

But, if you think for one minute that Obummer isn't anti-gun, you're nuts. They have finally grown tired of the gun fight, so now they are going after the ammo. It's been successful to a degree. I joined the NRA this year again BECAUSE of the new liberal power base in this country, and their historic anti-gun alignment.

For the record, I know that labels aren't fair, but that general trends are. I know pro-life Democrats, and have read anti-gun Republican stuff. Labels aren't fair because they are applied to the individual. Trends are fair because the are applied to groups or movements that have published or proclaimed their positions.

As an example, I am forced to give money to the NEA and the CTA, but honestly think that I have disagreed with EVERY POLITICAL STANCE THEY HAVE TAKEN!!!!!

Djfan
05-14-2009, 04:22 PM
Liberal and not anti-gun here.
I'm opposed to unrestricted ownership of assault weapons, bazookas and suchlike that the NRA thinks every illiterate nut on the street must have free right to possess.
There's a difference between owning a .38 for self defense or a shotgun for hunting and owning an AK56..

I agree. Now a funny story.

A friend of mine used to be a videographer. He was hired by a congressman to video his "shooting trip" with some friends. I saw part of it. They were shooting M16, Uzis, fully auto btw, and rocket launchers.

Hypocrites.

These are the same clowns who force us to give to Social Security since it's so good for us all, but don't give to it themselves.

snarky
05-14-2009, 06:49 PM
These are the same clowns who force us to give to Social Security since it's so good for us all, but don't give to it themselves.

Ummm, this is not true.

stlrz d
05-14-2009, 08:13 PM
Not all liberals are anti gun ownership.

Don't paint with such a broad brush my friend. :)

I wasn't. It wasn't my statement. I was clearing it up for him by explaining the supposition in the other statement.

But, if you think for one minute that Obummer isn't anti-gun, you're nuts. They have finally grown tired of the gun fight, so now they are going after the ammo. It's been successful to a degree. I joined the NRA this year again BECAUSE of the new liberal power base in this country, and their historic anti-gun alignment.

For the record, I know that labels aren't fair, but that general trends are. I know pro-life Democrats, and have read anti-gun Republican stuff. Labels aren't fair because they are applied to the individual. Trends are fair because the are applied to groups or movements that have published or proclaimed their positions.

As an example, I am forced to give money to the NEA and the CTA, but honestly think that I have disagreed with EVERY POLITICAL STANCE THEY HAVE TAKEN!!!!!

Thanks for clearing that up. :)

As for the rest, despite our political differences we seem to get along so out of respect for our friendship I will now bow out of this discussion.

Djfan
05-14-2009, 10:02 PM
As for the rest, despite our political differences we seem to get along so out of respect for our friendship I will now bow out of this discussion.

Too bad. I have always respected you and felt respected.

stlrz d
05-14-2009, 10:43 PM
That's why I bowed out.

Djfan
05-14-2009, 10:51 PM
That's why I bowed out.

OUCH! I felt that we could talk about what ever.

RuthlessBurgher
05-14-2009, 11:48 PM
That's why I bowed out.

OUCH! I felt that we could talk about what ever.

As long as you don't shoot each other as a result of your gun discussion, all should be fine. :wink:

stlrz d
05-15-2009, 12:09 AM
That's why I bowed out.

OUCH! I felt that we could talk about what ever.

I'm staying out of it because I don't trust my temper not to flare.

papillon
05-22-2009, 04:31 PM
Interesting.

I notice the NRA doesn't really explain how the law would "criminalize gun owners who are victims of burglaries". That which is argued without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. But I digress.

Personally I have no problem with people keeping guns in their homes but guns are like anything else -- with freedom comes a measure of responsibility. In the wrong hands, guns which were yesterday sitting innocently in somebody's closet can present a danger to the community today. I feel society (particularly in densely populated areas) has a right to demand that those who choose to possess firearms do so responsibly; and in this case the jurisdiction in question has decided that it wants/needs information about firearms that appear to have fallen into the wrong hands. Whether or not that violates state law is up to the courts. But it seems a tad hyperbolic on the part of the NRA when they claim that this was "designed to criminalize gun owners who are victims of burglaries"

Just as an aside a gun owner by definition has assumed any and all responsibility for the gun and his/her actions with the gun simply by purchasing the weapon. There is absolutely no way to keep a criminal or a psychopath from obtaining a firearm. Anyone who wants to own a weapon and is of sound mind realizes that the weapon in the wrong hands can be very dangerous. On the other hand, that same person realizes that this is the most effective form of protection available to him or her. The USA too often punishes the many because of the actions of the few and it happens not just with gun rights.

Just remember this, the United States Government is not benevolent and don't let them try to convince you otherwise.

Here's one more Pappyism to ponder. The Democratic party is stupid, the Republican party is evil, if they agree on something it will be both, stupid and evil.

Pappy

papillon
05-22-2009, 04:35 PM
Snarky,

You may be right. But if so, that law is already in place in some states. I can't imagine that this law would upset gun owners. As a gun owner I would want a law like that.

As for the Obama SC appointee comment, you can bet that his appointee will be liberal. And that as a liberal he/she will be anti gun ownership. That is the presupposition.

Not all liberals are anti gun ownership.

Don't paint with such a broad brush my friend. :)

Most are except when it comes to them owning the gun, see Nancy Pelosi as a prime example. She carries in her purse at all times (because, she can), but, she would legislate against you, me or Mother Teresa from owning. Umm, no thanks.

Pappy

papillon
05-22-2009, 04:38 PM
I'm very liberal and as I have said I have no problem with gun ownership.

As for why gun owners are getting upset over it I have no idea. Pick any law that goes on the books and somebody will be upset with it -- that doesn't mean a law is flawed.

And all I have seen in this thread are complaints by the NRA which, more or less, is to second amendment what the ACLU is to the first.

Gun owners get upset, because, the 2nd amendment was specifically put in the Constitution for citizens to defend themselves against a too powerful government and as a way to prevent the usurpation of power from the people and giving it to the government.

Pappy

snarky
05-22-2009, 05:45 PM
Pappy,

How does the law in question prevent anybody from owning a gun?

papillon
05-22-2009, 09:41 PM
Pappy,

How does the law in question prevent anybody from owning a gun?

To be completely honest with you, I didn't even read the law or the first part of this thread. My political views aside the second amendment is the amendment that needs to be protected at all costs. It is the only amendment that gives the citizens (the people) the power to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. Anyone believing that theUS government is anything by tyrannical isn't paying attention; regardless of the party in power.

Under Republican leadership (well, actually, the lack of Republican leadership) the Patriot act was passed which basically allows the government to walk into your house, my house or any citizen's house if they "have suspicion" or wrong doing. No thanks.

David Koresh, the folks at Ruby Ridge and the boy from Cuba under Janet Reno's watch all had government agents simply walk into their homes or compounds and start shooting. This is before the Patriot Act made it legal. That scares me, regardless, of what you may think about the people invaded, if they'll do it to them, then why not me or you?

I'll go back and read the law in question and then get back to you. I'm also off my soapbox now. Sorry

Pappy

papillon
05-22-2009, 09:47 PM
Snarky,

From what I've read I'm not sure how the connection is being made from legal gun owner to criminal. Probably, in the following fashion, a family owns a gun legally and it is stolen from their house. The gun is then used in a crime and the family is then questioned and detained due to the fact that their fingerprints are on the gun and the registration of the gun points to them.

That's the only logical connection that I can make. Regardless, Pennsylvania is a "shall issue" state (thankfully), which means, if you apply for a CCP as long as you have no felonies or misdemeanors in your background check they have to grant the CCP.

Pappy

snarky
05-23-2009, 11:00 AM
David Koresh, the folks at Ruby Ridge and the boy from Cuba under Janet Reno's watch all had government agents simply walk into their homes or compounds and start shooting.

Just a few points of fact.

Ruby Ridge happened before Janet Reno
The first shots at Waco were fired eleven days before Reno became AG
No shots were fired in the raid to get E. Gonzalez


...if they'll do it to them, then why not me or you?

Personally, if the govt. came to my door with a search warrant issued by a judge I wouldn't start firing at them.

I don't know a whole lot about Ruby Ridge but the other two cases you mentioned started because people refused to allow warrants to be executed.

As for the Patriot Act, I agree -- it has some serious problems.

Djfan
05-23-2009, 12:45 PM
Good points all. I wasn't defending or supporting the law. I just posted it because of the proximity to our beloved Steelers.

To be honest, after reading all this stuff again, it sounds like we are all pretty much saying the same things. Own a gun, responsibly, and the government is a mess.

Now back to my good friendship with D.

SanAntonioSteelerFan
06-09-2009, 01:40 PM
Not all liberals are anti gun ownership.

Don't paint with such a broad brush my friend. :)

I wasn't. It wasn't my statement. I was clearing it up for him by explaining the supposition in the other statement.

But, if you think for one minute that Obummer isn't anti-gun, you're nuts. They have finally grown tired of the gun fight, so now they are going after the ammo. It's been successful to a degree. I joined the NRA this year again BECAUSE of the new liberal power base in this country, and their historic anti-gun alignment.

For the record, I know that labels aren't fair, but that general trends are. I know pro-life Democrats, and have read anti-gun Republican stuff. Labels aren't fair because they are applied to the individual. Trends are fair because the are applied to groups or movements that have published or proclaimed their positions.

As an example, I am forced to give money to the NEA and the CTA, but honestly think that I have disagreed with EVERY POLITICAL STANCE THEY HAVE TAKEN!!!!!

I feel a little guilty about posting in a thread that's a few weeks old, but it caught my eye as the 2nd most recent one on this forum. I haven't posted as much lately (trying to get some real life in before the season starts again!), and I wish I were as eloquent as some of the above posters, but I just wanted to respond to that phrase...

I actually don't know ANY "anti-life" Democrats. It's true that many are against complete abolition of abortion, but to call that "not pro-life" seems a little extreme to me. I think more than any one single issue, it's the whole package that needs to be considered before labelling someone pro-life or anti-life. For example: if they are successful in preventing a fetus from being aborted, do they think their obligation ends there, and that there's no moral obligation to give up some of their hard-earned to help him/her thrive and succeed (no data to quote here, but I would bet the mothers of most aborted babies are quite poor)? Do they believe Medicaid, state children's health programs, and the like are inherently wrong because they take the money from people that have worked hard to earn it? And what about the death penalty (not saying here that the death penalty is wrong, but if someone believes in applying it, it's kind of hard for me to think of them as "pro-life")?

In my mind at least, it's what obligations a society feels it has to every child after it is born, as much as whether some pregnancies are or are not ended by medical intervention, that determines whether it is "pro-life" or not.

Respectfully, and just my :2c

SASF

Djfan
06-14-2009, 09:41 PM
Hey SASF,

Good to have you back during your hiatus!

I posted that not to bring up any label's acceptance or offensiveness. I could have used a number of phrases in that case. I chose the one that is most benign in my mind. Sorry if that missed.

My point was not the issue of abortion, but that individuals within any party fall outside the accepted, or used frameworks of the parties, or presentation of those parties.

The issue of abortion is so offensive to me that I won't enter into it as a debate. I find it way too touchy for me. I just can't do it.

Hope that helps.