Cuomo close to announce sweeping gun control laws

Cuomo Close To Announcing Sweeping New Gun Control Laws

Sources told Kramer the governor and lawmakers are negotiating furiously in the hope that Cuomo can announce a deal during his speech Wednesday.

Sources said the package is expected to include:

* New restrictions on assault weapons

* Stiffer penalties for using a gun to commit a crime

* New limits on the number of bullets in a gun magazine

Can someone in the NY government go on the house floor and tell these traitors : WHAT THE HELL DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND IN SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED???

The time for being nice and polite with these scum is over. Especially when they dance on the grave of children and bath in their blood to push their statist crap.

All gun control laws are unconstitutional on their face.

But If the majority of people want better control on who can get the guns shouldn't you do the democratic thing and listen to them?

Originally posted by boymonkey74
But If the majority of people want better control on who can get the guns shouldn't you do the democratic thing and listen to them?

America ain't a democracy. It's a constitutional republic.

Don't like guns? Change it the constitutional way or move to another country.

reply to post by lolita64


Ok fair enough.

Originally posted by boymonkey74
But If the majority of people want better control on who can get the guns shouldn't you do the democratic thing and listen to them?

No.

No.

Most Americans are not for gun control but your being told that to be pro gun you must also be dead children. Which makes you look like a loon if you are pro gun. It's called spin it's Now a trade mark of our government.

Originally posted by boymonkey74
But If the majority of people want better control on who can get the guns shouldn't you do the democratic thing and listen to them?

opinions are being driven by purposefully induced fear.

most people remember the "shall not be infringed" part of the second amendment, but forget the "the right to bear arms, being NECESSARY to the security of a free state"

every time guns have been heavily restricted/banned in the last 200-250 years, mass murder occurred. it may have been a few years down the road, but it is the inevitable result of banning guns. i can think of 5 or 6 instances off the top of my head.

restricting guns to only the power hungry robs the common citizens of any means of defense against tyranny.

At which point, all armed NYers will likely draw their guns in rebellion,

and innocents bystanders and crowds will start being shot dead by the hundreds

Gun riots, Mob shootouts! The motive? They paid for them bullets!

Originally posted by minnow
At which point, all armed NYers will likely draw their guns in rebellion,

and innocents bystanders and crowds will start being shot dead by the hundreds

Gun riots, Mob shootouts! The motive? They paid for them bullets!

I live in NY and I can tell you that I've not heard anything about this. However, Cuomo will have one hell of a problem with the "people" if he tries to push this through. I never understood the whole "limit clips to 10 rounds or less" debate. I guess they assume a killer couldn't just carry a few more clips.

But anyway.. there is a difference between rebelling, and acting like a complete animal. The people in the video you posted were nothing more than disgusting savages.

But with that said, I bet no one kept looting that Korean shoe store. Why not? Guys were not taking any crap and shooting.

People don't understand tyranny. They will when it comes down upon them however. All citizens have the right to carry anything the govern....mint carries. It will keep us free! S & F

Even on Christmas Eve 2 NYC firemen senslessly shot dead by lone rifleman
So much for honoring heros!

reply to post by lolita64






Hopefully the Flame of Udun trumps Cuomo's pull...

Some interesting comments from the opinion of District of Columbia V Heller and this opinion was from the ones who voted in favor of Heller.

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgunownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating thatproblem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policychoices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone throughthe 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

Although we do not undertake anexhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of theSecond Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

D of C v Heller

There it is.......a disarmed populace is prey to the brutality of its goverment.
A disarmed man is prey to the theives and criminals who come upon him thus.
In my world,
Responsible gun owners SHOULD be practicing CCW holders as well.....
In the final analysis it is the citizen who is responsible for his own safety and that of those he may protect...

The state can only really persue law breakers, and can very seldom prevent or stop a crime.....
It is your absolute right to resist harm......whether prepetrated by the state or an individual.
One cannot pick and choose assailants.....or the circumstances.

Originally posted by boymonkey74
But If the majority of people want better control on who can get the guns shouldn't you do the democratic thing and listen to them?

Democratic is listening to the minority as well and then aggregating a conclusion based on both sides.

Isn't it strange how , when someone commits a murder with a gun, people call for the banning of the instrument?

Yet when a person commits murder with a vehicle, the people ignore the vehicle and call for life in prison for the murderer.

???

Originally posted by boymonkey74
But If the majority of people want better control on who can get the guns shouldn't you do the democratic thing and listen to them?

What if the majority wanted African Americans to sit in the back of the bus or not sit at the lunch counter? Just because the majority wants to restrict the rights of the minority, it does not make it right, moral, or lawful.

Originally posted by SinMaker
People don't understand tyranny. They will when it comes down upon them however. All citizens have the right to carry anything the govern....mint carries. It will keep us free! S & F

Hell people didn't understood it in the Soviet Union till they personally were arrested and sent to the gulags... and even then most of them were in denial and thought it was all a mistake.

Read The Gulag Archipelago... humans have not changed much since then... and I would wager they're even more pro-tyranny than these folks were.

Originally posted by streetfightingman

Originally posted by boymonkey74
But If the majority of people want better control on who can get the guns shouldn't you do the democratic thing and listen to them?

Democratic is listening to the minority as well and then aggregating a conclusion based on both sides.

Or "two wolves and a sheep arguing what is for supper"

Mr. Cuomo, a Democrat, will outline his proposal in his State of the State address, but even before he speaks, he has incited anxiety among gun owners by acknowledging in a radio interview that “confiscation could be an option” for assault weapons owned by New Yorkers. Since that interview, Mr. Cuomo has not mentioned the idea, and his aides have acknowledged that it would be impractical.

Link

Ultimately this is what they want, and I have a feeling that New York may actually be the test for total confiscation. Cuomo went on record stating that confiscation could be an option, can it be any more obvious what the agenda is here?