I agree with firefighter350. This law was rushed with little debate or consideration by the citizens of this state. I thought this Governor wanted to do away with the behind-closed-doors tactics of past state governments, yet here we are with a sweeping set of amendments to the current laws that were rushed through without public comment. There are many of who have military surplus weapons that were purchased directly from the Dept. of Defense through the Civilian Marksmanship Program for the purpose of service rifle competition. Now all of these weapons are illegal and those that own them will be criminals unless they register them with the state police. The Governor couldn't afford a confiscation program for many reasons, especially with the possibility of having to authorize house to house searches for contraband weapons. It would sound to much like the creation of a police state. This way, the state has a means to begin a confiscation program, as the more law-abiding owners will comply. This kind of government is exactly the sort of thing that the Second Amendment was intended to prevent. There are too many individuals and organizations from the Governor's office to the media who are thinking with their hormones and emotions rather than their brains. Yes, Newtown was a horrific tragedy and I would be the first to admit that there are too many assault weapons out there. We could debate the origin of the fascination with post Vietnam Era weaponry, but it wouldn't change the fact that it exists. Thanks to the entertainment industry and the video game manufacturers there is an obsession with "tactical" weapons in this country that is frankly disturbing. We all need to step back and think about what we are doing to each other in our grief over those children. Every day this country gets further and further away from itself. View Comment

Gó raibh maith agat! An bhfuil Gaeilgeoir tú? A very pleasant surprise! I like the direction towards licensing and liability insurance, but I see problems in cost and bureaucratic abuse. Any ban will more than likely make one side of the issue feel good, but will end up being ineffective without mass confiscation. If anyone feels that eminent domain is a damnable practice, try the confiscation route. That scares me in a way that nothing else could. It would be a very slippery slope towards a police state that no one should want. Too many individuals would hide their weapons under ground like the IRA did. It would create a black market for banned weapons, house to house searches for banned weapons (stop and frisk would not work with assault rifles), and so on... Frankly, it would put us back under the sort of government that we revolted against in the first place. JN may have had a 1st Amendment right, but they should be held responsible for any damages as well. Sort of like falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. I see a very good class action suit here. There may also be some connection to US Supreme Court precedent regarding the right to privacy. A right that is not codified within the Constitution, but is acknowledged as valid by the Supreme Court. Something to keep an eye on. By the way, the internet is a very sharp, double edged sword. The privacy issue is just one of many pitfalls that we as a people are encountering. On the other hand, it has allowed the chance meeting of two citizens, who just happen to know some Gaelic, to engage in (what may be) a great and important debate. What a country! View Comment

First off your critical reasoning is very good, but I feel that you didn't follow your arguments far enough. 1. You are right about the current law for New York, but I think the poll is aiming at future law that will include more than what is currently in the public database. 2a. I think the debate here is not just for the current registration database of handgun owners and those with Federal Firearms Licenses. The implied question for this poll seems to be that if future regulation of firearms contains provisions for the registration of all firearms, then should the database of owners be made public? Why? We don't publish a database of all car owners, even though that is public information. The fact that there is a risk for a criminal intent on burglary does not seem to always stop the burglary. 2b. Yes, safes and trigger locks are available, but are not always burglar proof. Some gun vaults are not cheap, costing upwards of $4,000 or more, which may put an undue burden on the average gun owner who has long arms for hunting or target shooting. You may still argue that this is reasonable, but many owners at present need only something to deter children and others from gaining immediate access. Why place extra burdens on these people, they have not done anything wrong. 2c. Your assumption that criminals are unlikely to pick up a copy of the Journal News to find names of gun owners is somewhat naive. They would not need the Journal News. All they would need is access to the internet. Easily traced, registered handguns that have been stolen continue to show up as recovered weapons used in crimes all over the country. We would all like to believe that all the guns that are recovered at crime scenes in NYC, are from Virginia gun shops, but that isn't always the truth. Yes, criminals do have many ways of obtaining weapons, including theft. I agree with your concern about the lack of critical reasoning, but I am increasingly concerned that some members of the press are demonizing all gun owners. They may be qualifying their commentary, but I would be willing to bet that many readers don't read the whole article or dismiss the qualifications out of hand. My greatest fear is that the whole debate on gun control will devolve into a witch hunt. At the same time, I am also concerned that the extremists of both the gun lobby and anti-gun activists will make effective legislation impossible to draft. Yes, aim before firing, but, also, make sure of your backstop, as you still might miss the target. By the way, what is the difference of publishing the names of registered pedophiles in a newspaper, as opposed to having those names available in a database that anyone can access through the internet? P.S. I have to beat myself up a bit here, by offering myself as proof that one doesn't always read everything. I didn't realize that the Journal News already published this list. I don't subscribe to the paper, as I have never been impressed with the quality of it's journalism. My arguments for the future of this debate still stand. While I find it interesting to know which of my neighbors have handgun permits, I did not need to know it and it wasn't something that I or any reasonable person should be actively seeking. If what goes on in your bedroom is out of bounds for the general public, why is this list not also out of bounds? In addition, I offer the Journal News' irresponsible action as proof that this whole debate is already devolving into a witch hunt led by the worst elements of the press. I sincerely hope that some of the named individuals, who are innocent of any crime, litigate the Journal News into bankruptcy for this incredible invasion of privacy. View Comment

The problem with making the names of legal gun owners public is that you will also make their homes targets for thieves who would love to find weapons that they could get cheap. Would anyone who has an expensive collection of diamond jewelry, antiques, gold or art want their names and addresses public? View Comment

Civic Minded : You will still have a hole in the town center if Walmart moves across Rt.6. It would be better for all concerned if Walmart negotiated with A&P and the Town Center management and just expand on the present site. View Comment