Galt's Gulch

NY sheriff encourages carrying firearms

Posted by johnpe1 9 years ago to Culture
90 comments | Share | Flag

2 hours north of NYC, this county sheriff advises that
the good guys carry their guns. . Is This Wise? -- j
.
SOURCE URL: http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/12/03/ulster-county-sheriff-carry-guns/?AID=7236

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by bsmith51 9 years ago
    I agree with this sheriff. That said, situational awareness and being mentally prepared to see and take action constitute the first most critical line of personal defense. For probably half the population, that means changing their paradigm and removing their rose colored glasses; a tall order.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by bsmith51 9 years ago
    Those who disagree with this sheriff are willing to bet their own life and everyone else's that when seconds count, government protection won't be minutes away. As the jihad continues and the body count in America increases, that delusional attitude will grudgingly change.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by MountainLady 9 years ago
    As Rand said:

    "All the reasons which make the initiation of force an evil, make the retaliatory use of force an imperative."

    Putin has it right; Obama doesn't.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by johnpe1 9 years ago
      gorgeous quote;;; do you remember the source? -- j
      .
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago
        Self-Defense



        The necessary consequence of man’s right to life is his right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative.

        If some “pacifist” society renounced the retaliatory use of force, it would be left helplessly at the mercy of the first thug who decided to be immoral. Such a society would achieve the opposite of its intention: instead of abolishing evil, it would encourage and reward it.

        The Virtue of Selfishness

        “The Nature of Government,”
        The Virtue of Selfishness, 108
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by edweaver 9 years ago
    Why wouldn't it be wise for good guys to carry?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by bsmith51 9 years ago
      In the minds of the delusionists, only trained government agents have the cognitive skills to shoot only the bad guys and nobody else. it's about who has the power, and who doesn't.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by plusaf 9 years ago
        ... and that the government and its agents are The Best Sources of Protection (and everything else) for All Of Us....

        Like a kid whose mommy and daddy provide everything for them so they never have to think... or work... for themselves.

        Does THAT make sense to you? Does to me!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by $ jdg 9 years ago
      It is, if the good guys are prepared to recognize and react when there is danger to them.

      But I know people who would just stand there like a deer in the headlights. If they carried anything the bad guys would just take it away. They're better off without, at least until they go through some kind of awakening.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by $ jlc 9 years ago
        This is a human fallibility, jdg. If you have a weapon and are stunned by the situation and do not use it, that is because we live in a peaceful society and are not trained to react. But it is still better than not having the weapon, because if you had that extra cup of coffee that morning and happen to be alert, reaching into your pocket and pulling out a gun is a lot more effective than throwing a wad of used kleenex at the terrorists.

        Jan
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by strugatsky 9 years ago
          The War on the Second Amendment has nothing to do with saving anyone's lives. If Obama and Hillary actually believed it, they would have disarmed their Secret Service. The Second Amendment is the only teeth that the Constitution has; and since the stated goal of the socialists is to dismantle the Constitution ("transform America"), the teeth need to be knocked out. The rank and file socialists, incapable of independent, rational reasoning, take their talking points and marching orders from the Party and blindly scream about saving children or whoever, but that is just smoke and mirrors. The real goal is to protect the government.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by johnpe1 9 years ago
      there are millions who think of folks with concealed-carry
      permits as a more dangerous element than terrorists ... it seems. -- j
      .
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by gcarl615 9 years ago
        With respect john, you are wrong, maybe dead wrong. Those us who do carry are protecting you who do not as well as ourselves.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by johnpe1 9 years ago
          gcarl, I am not among the millions who think that concealed-carry
          folks are dangerous;;; I love them!!! -- j
          .
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            -
          • Posted by gcarl615 9 years ago
            Opps sorry if I read your note incorrectly. Now that I have reread it I realized my error. Talk about knee jerk reaction huh
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              -
            • Posted by johnpe1 9 years ago
              I have gone back and forth about getting a concealed-carry
              permit myself, and keep running into the fact that having one
              tells the world that I own a gun and might be mugged to get it.
              if push comes to shove, concealed-carry without a permit
              could be the rule rather than the exception. -- j
              .
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                -
              • Posted by letfreedomring10 9 years ago
                Why do WE need a permit if it is our right to carry? A permit is nothing more than a tax. . . EX. You know how to drive right? Then why need a license to drive?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago
                  What does your state law say. Second Amendment used to be for people in the military specifically State militias in some way. That is the only mechanism where the Federal Government has a right granted. The Supreme Court recently disconnected the two clauses admitting the right to defend oneself with no weapons restrictions mentioned. Why? because the 9th and 10th Amendment didn't give them that right or that power. However what your state has on the books only takes the form of rights granted by the citizens of your state.

                  Obama is a dictator pure and simple...but he has no right to even discuss the subject beyond that of the military application.

                  I'd like to see a show of hands and cites and sources concerning the state level and then see how that might be affected by the same law that affected the same sex marriage ruling - the full faith and credit clause.

                  We already know that 'unlike Nixon' Obama IS a crook. I said that tongue in both cheeks at once.

                  What about the 50 governors?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    -
                  • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 9 years ago
                    I do not believe that the second amendment was intended to only apply to state militias. If it had been it would have referenced the states, not the people.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago
                      It did reference the States. Specifically. Back then the States as in capital S for sovereign were the only entities that had militias or on call military formations. So one part of your objection contradicts reality of history while the other part contradicts historical reality.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        -
                      • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 9 years ago
                        It references "a free State" or "a free state" depending upon which version you use. The one without the capital was ratified. And there is a distinction between "the state" and "the states" even without the capitalization issue.

                        I would argue that without the plural it refers to the entire political body rather than the 13 ratifying states.

                        I draw your attention to Article 10: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." This clearly shows a reference to "the states" and clearly means the individual states.

                        So, I think historical reality may lean in the direction of giving the right to bear arms to the people and not to the states.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago
                          Of course you are just repeating history again. nothing new there. Federal once the constitution was put into effect covered only State Militias by the provisions, primarily, of the President being Commander-In-Chief IF the State Militias were mobiilized and by the duty of Congress to make regulations governing the entirety of the 13 States 13 Militias into one 'like' group. The federal rights granted went no further.

                          The States Rights granted went only as far as the citizens of each state granted rights to the Sates or states and that did not include necessary an automatic extension to the Federal government. The rest was and is tnone of the governments business.

                          The Federal and the State Governments too as far As I know never the power to giver rights to the people. It's the other way around. Rights Not Specifically Granted do not exist. No matter how much fascist swine like Obama and his immediate predecessors and would be successors wish differently. That includes the military swearing allegiance to the President or the country as a whole instead of to and limited to the Constitution.

                          It didn't lean that way at all simply because they had no right to grant rights. The whole line of thinking is false on it's face and useful only to the left wing fascists we're not stuck with for a while.

                          For sure the military knows it...whether they follow their oath of office or not is another question. But if not they are personally liable for the consequences.

                          The whole discussion is moot while the Constitution itself is in question and not being held as the center of national politics by the leftists, Rinos to Progressives inclusive. It's just a discussion of history....until that question and it is a question at this point is underway.

                          So. Cut the extraneous BS and get to the real question. What law of the land is currently and legally in force? Patriot Act or Constitution? Executive Orders or Constitution? Which will law enforcement and even more important the military support? No question which one DOHS is supporting and it isn't the Constitution.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by nsnelson 9 years ago
                I understand. We should not have to ask permission to equip ourselves with efficient tools for self-defense. We are pushing through the legal channels for less gun-control here in Texas. Still have a long ways to go. In the mean time, I'd rather carry legally.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                -
              • Posted by gcarl615 9 years ago
                John, I understand your concerns, I wrestled with the very same issues for quite some time. Face it the PTBs already know if you have a weapon. There were times I carried before CCPs were available. Now I do it legally. You do get a whole new perspective on your responsibilities as a 2nd amendment living citizen when you take the training, Get that permit. Live safe and well John.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Texaswildfire 9 years ago
                As a legal carrier myself, get the permit and be legal. If someone is going to mug you to take your weapon, they are already short on the mental side. It is easier to attack someone who is defenseless, like in a no-gun zone. I do not go to or do business in a no-gun zone, they usually do not have enough security to protect me and others.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago
                Plenty of weapons that don't require a permit or any training and are just as deadly or even worse. Household common products in spray bottles for one.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  -
                • Posted by strugatsky 9 years ago
                  Careful. When you use a gun, including lethally, for self protection, you have the protection of the 2nd Amendment (to varying degrees, depending on circumstances and the audience). Knives and especially home-made lethal concoctions have no such protections.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago
                    True but there's nothing said about carrying. Plain old shopping bag will do fine. Bottle of spray ammonia fresh receipt... hey I was just walking home when this dude tried to mug me....

                    Only problem is lethality. The advantage to lethal is no one to prevent a different story.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by GaryL 9 years ago
    I live in a bordering county to Ulster, Sullivan county and my Sheriff feels the same way. He just says if you feel comfortable carrying, know the laws and can shoot straight then strap it on. On any given night around here the nearest deputy or SP trooper could be 45 minutes away on the other side of the county. I would be surprised to hear the Sheriff has more than 2 or 3 road patrol deputies on the midnight shift.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by johnpe1 9 years ago
      I bet that you have a bunch of neighbors who agree! -- j
      .
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by GaryL 9 years ago
        You would win that bet John! Once you go above the NYC metro area where all the idiots live, NY becomes a very conservative state except in the other major big cities. It is the 8-10 Million idiot voters in the cities that tarnish this gorgeous state!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago
          Hmmm curious. I've been to NYC and view it in the opposite way as a counterpoint to a Pace Picante commercial and little else. I've been upstate and found them in many ways to regular flyover country type Americans who sort of shrug apologetically when reminded of NYC. On balance I have to agree with Pace Picante for defining the situation as well as they did.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            -
          • Posted by GaryL 9 years ago
            Sorry Michael but I am not aware of the noted commercial and can't speak to that. What I am referring to is you find the vast majority of "D" votes in the major metro parts of this state and in the rural counties you find mostly "R" voters
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago
              Ah yes well Pace Picante chunky salsa is sold and advertised nation wide except perhaps in NYC. The discussion in the ad is where was your salsa made. Then in loud disbelieving horrified you got to be kidding me tones the reponse to the answer is New YORK CiiiTEEEE? It's the best salsa made north of the border....Add is kind of like the beer commercials for Henry Weinhardt Private Reserve beer out West. featuring the non existent Oregon Border Customs, Immigration and border patrol ...back when it was Oregon instead of New Amsterdam.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by johnpe1 9 years ago
          I spent a week in Ontario, NY, just east of Rochester,
          back in '67 when a friend was graduating from high school --
          just a year after I did. . wonderful people, wonderful country,
          and I felt totally at home there. . it was a great week!!! -- j
          .
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by GaryL 9 years ago
            If the only impression of NY that a visitor has comes from NYC then the visitor missed the best of this state. Having lived here all of my 63 years the very last place I want to visit is NY City.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by $ jlc 9 years ago
    The quote concerning 'we pay the police to protect us' is the key to the matter. People believe that because we have a police department (a) they are immediately saved and (b) the police intuitively know who the 'good guy' is.

    Neither of these statements reflect reality, so if you can carry, you should do so.

    Jan
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Texaswildfire 9 years ago
      In reality, the police patrol, investigate what has already happened, and generate case numbers and reports for insurance companies. I am not saying they do little, I am saying " WHEN SECONDS COUNT, THE POLICE ARE JUST MINUTES AWAY", if you are lucky. In my county, at night, I might be lucky enough to have law enforcement in 30 minutes if I report " shots fired", maybe. That is not a complaint, just fact. Living in rural areas in rural counties does not have the same resources as the city.

      Choices and responsibilities.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago
      For years the Supreme Court held the protection of the citizen is the duty of the citizen the police are not there to stop crime unless happens in front of them or they have some prior warning. They are required to investigate and see justice done up to the the line where the courts take over.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jchristyatty 9 years ago
    Yes indeed. My life is the most important possession I have...without it means "game over". Can't risk that. Even with the substantially unlikely scenario that I might be involved in a criminal act of mass murder, I must take responsibility for my own defense. If actually involved in such a scenario, I have realistically a few seconds to respond to the threat scenario. In that few seconds, no one is going to save me, no one is going to arrive to protect me....government, police protection, in those few seconds, is irrelevant. You just have to face facts....A is A, things are what they are. Someone is attempting to kill you and/or the one's you love and value and the last/first line of defense is me. Be vigilant, be prepared and be situationally aware. It may not save your life, but it's the best chance you have to survive and it beats the hell out of standing there totally defensless and wishing you had been prepared. However, if you choose to be armed, you must take responsibility for that choice and learn, train and practice. I practice at least twice a month, dry fire and at the range... and I burn up a lot of ammo. Skill with a firearm is a depreciating skill. I can't immagine being in a gunfight but the first rule of being in a gun fight is to bring a gun....and know how to use it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Joseph23006 9 years ago
    Good advice for the times we live in. We know that we cannot trust this President or his administration to keep us safe anymore if they are not willing to admit the danger, identify the enemy, and actually take steps to do anything about it!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by wmiranda 9 years ago
    Those people were wise enough to move or live two hours north of NYC, so it seems they would be wise enough to carry their CCW. I live in a high tourism area in Florida and I've been very laxed in the last few years as it relates to carrying. I'm rethinking my habits and adjusting my attitude on daily CCW.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago
      Florida had a problem with tourists being mugged and held up at gunpoint some years ago. The finding was the criminal types knew the chances were high a Floridian had a weapon and zero chance for the tourist.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by wmiranda 9 years ago
        The crime rate actually went down, not for tourist but for residents, and there are many cases in which senior citizens defended themselves against break ins. In the Zimmerman/Martin case, Zimmerman turned out to be somewhat of an a**hole for a person. However, as the actual facts later revealed Martin was beating the hell out of Zimmerman. At my age, I couldn't take a beating like that and I would have shot the assailant a lot earlier than Zimmerman did. I've heard the comment that it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo