In my county you can't get a full carry pistol permit, unless you transfer and carry large amounts of cash every week. Proving that to them, money has more value than my life.

I'm now no better than an arsonist or pedophile in their eyes as well.

The government − ANY government − is the very last entity I would want to have the power of life and death.

Unfortunately, history is just that, I'm afraid.

If we'd start stringing up those who, under the influence of drugs (including alcohol), do harm to others then we'd go a lot further towards ending the scourge than we have by attempting to prohibit possession of easily acquired substances.

We need to learn to legislate regarding actions instead of attempting to prohibit easily acquired substances/objects.

Who's right? (A decidedly rhetorical question, to be sure...)

IMO, it has NOTHING to do with the gun issue.

You see nothing in the published list of offenses that has anything to do with guns or gun control or "the issue: Freedom". Yet one must ask, "what exactly do these things show us about freedom and the mentality of those who have instituted unreasonable laws?"

To your mind they have nothing to do with the issue, to others they DO have a lot to do with the basic matter to which we are referring - the denial of the right of an individual to possess an inanimate object.

The list of crimes is a list of actions, most of which are condemned by most civilized people. Actions done by individuals to individuals, actions resulting in harm either physical or psychological to another person. Yet the ones who have passed the law in question deem that the mere possession of an inanimate object even without causing harm to another nor yet having been proved to intend to harm another is to be punished more severely than actions that indeed cause harm to another.

You tell us that this has nothing to do with "the issue: Freedom". Some of us believe otherwise. Freedom is not about causing harm to another, it is about being free from government intrusion in one's private life when one's private actions do no harm to another person. The possession of an inanimate object causes no harm to another, therefore it is ridiculous to assign greater punishment for such a "crime" than the punishment meted out in response to actions which DO bring harm to others.

Those who enacted such a law and any who enforce such a law are deserving of ridicule. We have been told that we should "be above all that", but should we? Should we not laugh to scorn those who are afraid of mere objects? Should we not shine light on the hypocrisy of those who invent crimes where no harm is done to another?

And, in case that this may come across as argumentative, looking for a fight or any other such interpretation, that is NOT my intent. :) I asked, honestly, for your opinion and although you did not ask for mine I gave it freely. It's worth what you paid for it, I'm sure. If not, I'll be glad to issue a refund!

I don't think I am. At all.

I just don't see any connection between the other crimes listed in the article and 'gun control'.

Because there isn't one.

I do not support 'gun control' in NY or anywhere else, but I am absolutely certain the intent of such laws is not to "equate" any kind of behavior with any other.

Frankly, I thought such tactics were reserved for the 'other' side, but I suppose 'all is fair.'

The "information", however valuable it may be, has NOTHING to do with the gun issue.

That is really all there is to it.

Good for a 'Book Of Facts' − or even games, such as 'Trivial Pursuit' − but that's really about it.

Better, I think, to stick to the issue: Freedom.