Lawmakers down state want to make gun owners register their weapons every 3-5 years in an effort to have greater control over weapons. This is a result, they say, of the Binghamton shootings.

On the surface I thought this might be a good idea, mostly because it’s a way to make money and help the deficit. I also get the intent of such a law… limit idiots from having guns.

After thinking about it though, I HATE this idea. Despite my huge concerns for people with guns, it is our right to carry them. See the 2nd amendment of our constitution. Don’t roll your eyes, it’s a big deal.

If they pass a law that says you have to register your gun every 5 years then what do you, the responsible gun owner, get in return? The state will say they’ll use the new income to help the budget and fund state projects, but how many times have they thrown taxes at us and then pissed it all away on non-sense? Too many.

I like compromise. If you want gun owners to re-register every 5 years, fine… but how about something in return? Allow gun owners less restriction on what they can own. If a guy wants a fully automatic AK47,  then let him (or her) have it, and in return make them register it consistently. That way the people get their guns and the government gets their oversight and money. Look, I know for gun owners this is not a perfect situation, but compromise is key with a lot of political issues. Don’t ask for the farm, but ask for some of the cows.

The other thing that blows me away is the people who introduced this bill are State Senator Eric Schneiderman, 31st district of Manhattan, and Assemblywoman Amy Pauling, 88th District of Westchester County. Both are down state politicians who are completely out of touch with what happens upstate regarding this issue. It’s easy to make policy when you are in rich communities that have had these laws for quite some time. To insist upon upstate that this is the proper policy for them is insulting. New York City’s issues are completely different from Rochester’s. We have a high murder rate because of drugs and ILLEGAL gun purchasing, something the current system does nothing to solve. We have more rural areas and much less crowding. We also get over taxed, under paid, and pay fee after fee after fee. Enough is enough.

This sort of policy making is short sighted and is another example of the state taking more of your rights and money away.

I know the intent is to stop a crazy perosn, like the one in Binghamton, from shooting a place up. That’s a noble cause. The reality is you can’t stop crazy people from being crazy. You can take everyone’s gun away and guns will still end up in a crazy person’s hand. Or they’ll come up with a different method all together. Don’t punish the many for the actions of a few. I’d also like to point out that this proposed law will solve nothing in terms of violence. Most gun violence is a result of illegally possessing a gun. Ugh, headache.

Have any of you noticed how pathetic the local political ads are? Every time elections come around all we hear are negative ads making just straight up ballsy accusations that usually are based so loosely on fact.

If all of the local candidates did these these things, and the ads are based on fact, I can’t help but think that none of them are quality people. As a voter, that maked me check out and not even care. Granted, that’s not true, I know who I’m voting for locally and why, but I can’t imagine any of you are very motivated to really see who stands for what. Why take a few minutes out of your day to look them up when all they do is show ads that hate on their opponent?

a note: I wanted to post my videos of singles mingle today but in my drunken stooper I have misplaced my handheld pocket cam. When I find it I will post it. LOL my bad…

I got this through the message board earlier today and liked it… but didn’t want to use space on the board…

Sub: Broke Republican

Pat….any republican that can honestly say the bailout plan was not the most socialistic thing to ever hit Washington in 50 years in not being truthful to themselves. Any conservative who can’t see George Bush broke the country by spending does not know what the word “conservative” means. The strange part of it all is the word “liberal”. Real conservatives believe they will become gay just by mentioning the word. Funny how the “n” word is so free spoken amongst them……JD

Your first point: the Republicans are so broken that they forgot there own beliefs and the reasons why they are Republicans and more importantly, economic conservatives (There is a diffrence, not all Republicans are conservatives). Republicans, whether conservative, liberal, or moderate, believe beyond a shadow of a doubt two things: less government control and influencve and more State’s rights.  We’ve seen the complete opposite from President Bush who’s been trying to outlaw abortion for 8 years on the fedweral level and gives states a hard time about allowing for gay marriage. The proper answer from him shouldn’t be to allow or disallow either of these examples, but rather let each state make iut’s own judgment. If a vast majority show that they feel one way on these or any issues, then you talk about making it a nationwide federal law.

That being said, I’m proud of the Repubicans today for standing up to this rediculous bailoiut plan that wasn’t strict enough from the get go.  You have to have STRICT regulation of Wall Street at this point if you want to avoid this from happening again, and you ahve to have strict regulation because we, as Americans, are simply idiots when it comes to borrowing and spending.

I want to hit something about the debate on Friday: McCain likes the classic Republican idea that tax returns will solve a lot of our personal financial problems. Under his plan, assuming it would ever go into play, he wants to give back every American $5000 or so based on the assumption the original bailout would work. That looks good on  papoer and I’d like to sit here and pretend it’s the responsible thing to do, but it’s not unless we also regulate. When everyone got their $600 from the government this year a good chunk of us spent it one debt, but it wasn’t enough to satisfy those debts and a good chunk of us bought crap like TVs made by Japanese companies. $5k is a nice shiny number and everyone deserves it, but for a whole loot fo you it won’t pay your credit card bills off. Let’s say you have $10k of credfit debt that you can only make minimum payments on. You get $5k from the givernment down the road and use it all on your credit card debt. Great! However you still can only pay the minimum payments on what is left over. In oher words, your in less debt technically, but your day to day avaiable money is still the same as well as your 25% interest rate. Giving money back looks pretty, but doesn’t work for a lot of people.

I like Obama here, because he would rather regulat enot onloy CEO’s but alos the system itself. That sounds socialist to some but there is a difference between control and regulation. I still say you give people McCain’s $5k but with that you find away to limit CEO’s from gutting the system like they have by either capping their earnings with percentages or by having rules that a board of directors of a company and the CEO must follow strictly. See this is what amazes me… if you’re a private company then you’r enot owned by the common person… do as you please. If you’re a public company and areoned by someone like myself, who invests in your company because I believe in it and want to make money with you by investing in it, how can a board of directors be allowed to take advantage of me? Not enough rules.

Don’t worry kids… everything is going to be OK, but you all best buckle down and stop spending today.

Back to the message post… when it comes to your comment about language I say bravo lol. Stupid rednecks.