Posts Tagged ‘New York’

Senators Hoeven and Corker Wave the White Flag of Surrender

June 21, 2013
Gun owners must oppose their sell-out amendment
Senators John Hoeven (R-ND) and Bob Corker (R-TN) have made anti-gun New York Senator Chuck Schumer a very happy man.  They are frantically working to give Schumer the 70 votes he needs to send his amnesty bill to the House with momentum.
And, if that bill were to be signed into law, it would add 8.4 million anti-gun voters to the rolls, and make gun registration, bans, and confiscation inevitable within 20 years.
Here’s where we stand:
Schumer’s original slimy deal was supposed to be this:  We will add 8.4 million anti-gun Democratic voters to the rolls, but, in exchange, we will secure the border.  It would supposedly do this by more fence and more federal agents.
Now the partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has come back with its numbers:  On the one hand, 8 million (mostly anti-gun) illegal immigrants would be eligible for citizenship.  And these are the figures from the liberal CBO!
On the other hand, said the CBO, illegal immigration would remain largely unaffected by the bill’s fencing and agents, going down a paltry 25%.
It was pretty apparent that Senate Republican negotiators had lost their shirts, even if you trust the liberal CBO.
So Hoeven and Corker began to negotiate over a path to pass Schumer’s anti-gun bill with a super-majority.  A little more fence.  A few more agents.  A more Orwellian E-Verify system.  But the big issue was whether to hold up citizenship for the 8.4 million anti-gun voters until illegal immigration had demonstrably been reduced by 90%.  Schumer & Co. adamantly refused to agree to this.
Why?  If Schumer had any expectation that the Obama administration was going to tighten the border, why would he be so averse to guaranteeing that result?
It was obvious to everyone that Schumer didn’t expect the border to ever be secure, and that was the reason he wasn’t willing to condition his 8.4 million anti-gun voters on quantifiable border security.
So what did Corker and Hoeven do?  They agreed to turn the 90% border security REQUIREMENT into a 90% border security non-binding GOAL.
It should have told them something that every liberal analyst in town has been deliriously happy over the Hoeven-Corker sell-out.
ACTION:  Click here to contact your U.S. Senators.  Tell them to oppose the Hoeven-Corker sell-out.
Just say no to surrender monkeys!

Bloomberg Launches $350K Campaign Against Senator who Voted Against Universal Background Checks

May 28, 2013

New York Michael Bloomberg exemplifies everything that is wrong with modern politics. I don’t mean to sound bitter or to wage some kind of irrational mudslinging campaign; I mean it in the most literal sense. He is everything that is rotten about politics in America.

No longer content with disarming the law-abiding in his own crime-riddled island wasteland, Bloomberg has set his sights on a much grander and far-reaching goal: disarming the American populace…. Because it has worked so well for the good citizens of New York, D.C., Chicago, Newark and South Central L.A.

Bloomberg spends his days and nights looking to invoke his will on the people and punish those that resist. Some might call it fascism, but when it’s a lefty doing it, all is forgiven.

Bloomberg and his stormtroopers, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, have begun a pricey $350,000 ad campaign to target Arkansas Democrat Senator Mark Pryor who is up for re-election next year. His crime? He had the audacity to vote against the unconstitutional universal background check bill.

FULL STORY

 

Gun ban advocates must decide if they’re willing–and able–to kill 50,000,000+

March 23, 2013

This id from Kurt Hoffman’s Examiner. Kurt is indeed one of the best writers on the internet, and AIRBORNE of course!

A new WorldNetDaily/Wenzel poll finds that only 20 percent of American gun owners would surrender their firearms if ordered to by the government (although an additional 16 percent claimed to be “unsure”–probably not the sort who would be determined enough to face the consequences of defying such an order). From WorldNetDaily:

The scientific telephone survey was conducted March 7-12 and has a margin of error of 2.92 percentage points.

“Among gun owners, 64 percent said they would not relinquish their guns, while 20 percent said they would and another 16 percent of gun owners were unsure on the question,” he said.

In some respects, additional details of the poll carry few surprises. Those who identify themselves as “conservative” are far less likely to surrender their guns than those who call themselves “liberal,” Republicans are less likely to submit to disarmament than Democrats, men less likely than women, whites less so than other ethnic groups, and southerners are less likely than inhabitants of other regions.

But if we step back away from the minutiae of the demographic breakdown, we have somewhere between 64 and 80 percent who will not comply with any confiscatory gun bans. And make no mistake, the specter of confiscatory bans is not “paranoid, right-wing delusion,” as can be seen be seen in the obscenely misnamed “SAFE Act,” in New York, an active program of confiscation of registered firearms in California, and proposals for similar abominations at the federal level:

From Senator Feinstein’s early plans for her “assault weapon” ban, (and remember, that’s “just the beginning”), to the Obama administration’s own National Institute of Justice declaring that “assault weapon” and “high capacity” magazine bans cannot accomplish anything without confiscation, to Rep. Eliot Engel‘s (D-NY) perennial confiscatory ban of “armor piercing” handguns, the gun prohibitionist lobby very clearly considers confiscation to be a realistic goal, and not just an abstract fantasy for the distant future.

What this poll shows, though, is that aspiring gun banners need to do some math homework. 64 to 80 percent of an estimated 80 million gun owners (a common, if tough to verify, estimate) works out to 51 to 64 million freedom loving, angry–and armed–Americans who intend to stay armed. Taking the math a bit further, that’s about 102 to 128 million hands that are not cold and dead, and will be holding guns until they are.

The WND article quotes Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA):

Meanwhile, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who has sponsored a bill that would ban certain types of weapons, said in Congress last week, “We cannot allow the carnage … to continue.”

She has never seen wholesale “carnage,” but if she really wants a good look, an attempt to disarm the American citizenry would get her a ringside seat for a level of carnage America hasn’t seen since the 1860s–except that there are no ringside seats for aspiring tyrants. She will be in the ring.

Who is going to disarm us? Who is going to kill us, in order to make that possible? Here’s something to think about before you answer. There are not enough jackbooted thugs to make it happen. There are not even enough grave diggers to bury the JBTs who might try. We were ready to rumble as three percent of America’s gun owners. At 20 or more times that, there won’t be enough targets to go around.

Your move, statists. Molon Labe.

SOURCE

About the publishing of addresses of gun owners…

March 8, 2013

What’s good for the goose must obviously be good for the gander.

So here are the addresses and phone number of NY Journal “columnist” (one who propagates journalistic abuse) Dwight R. Worley who published all of the HOME ADDRESSES of Law Abiding Conceal Carry Gun Owners of the entire state of NY as well as the rest of the Marxist swine at The Journal:

Dwight R Worley
23006 139 Ave
Springfield Gardens, NY 11413

But you might want to call him first to let him know you’ll be dropping in: (718) 527-0832

and here are the rest of the red diaper doper babies at
The Journal:

Journal News President:
—Janet Hasson, 3 Gate House Lane Mamaroneck, NY 10534 (914) 694.5204

Editors:
—Cyndee Royle, 1133 Westchester Ave., Suite N110, White Plains, NY 10604, 914-694-9300
–Nancy Cutler 9 Woodwind Ln, Spring Valley, NY. (845) 354 3485

Parent company of The Journal News Gannett
—–CEO Gracia C Martore 728 Springvale Rd Great Falls, VA 22066 (703) 759 5954

The reporter on the story is:
–Dwight R Worley 23006 139 Ave Springfield Gardens, NY 11413 (718) 527 0832

Plz hit the share button on this. Don’t let it get buried! Save a copy for when they re-set the comments.

SOURCE wishes to remain anonymous.

Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, D-Brooklyn: Stuck on Stupid

February 24, 2013

Insurance so that you can exercise a right? Read on about the nanny stater big government type Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, D-Brooklyn that is, quite simply. Stuck on stupid!

Gun owners would have to buy liability insurance to own a gun under a bill introduced recently by a New York City legislator, a proposal one gun owners group is calling an attempt to ban guns.

The bill has gotten little fanfare in light of the passage last month of the state’s Safe Act gun control legislation.

The bill was introduced by Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, D-Brooklyn.

“This insurance policy will serve as an incentive for firearm owners to implement safety measures in order to conduct the activity as safely as possible and only when necessary,” the bill reads.

The proposal has been introduced in the state Assembly but was without a Senate sponsor as of mid-February. It would require all gun owners in New York to buy a minimum of $1 million in liability insurance, insurance that one expert said would be difficult if not impossible to get and would likely be very expensive if available.

Gun owners who don’t have insurance would see their firearms confiscated under the proposed law.

“Its another outright attempt to ban firearms,” said Tom King, executive director of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association. “Everybody’s talking about this one.”

In the past, gun owners could rely on the state Senate to defeat restrictive gun bills, but that is no longer the case, King said.

Stephen Aldstadt, director of Shooters Committee on Political Education-New York, said the bill was “definitely something to be concerned about.”

He said federal legislators had unsuccessfully attempted to enact a similar law in the past.

He said he doesn’t think the bill will make it into law, however.

“I don’t think it has a legitimate chance,” Aldstadt said.

King, who works in the insurance industry, said finding insurance written specifically for guns would be almost impossible.

Mike Grasso, an executive with Cool Insurance in Queensbury and a gun owner, said homeowner’s insurance policies would generally cover any accidents involving firearms. But any willful or illegal conduct with a gun would generally not be covered by any insurance policy, he said.

“A willful act would not allow an injured person to recover insurance monies, except for a child using the gun when it is determined there was no intent, it was just an accident,” Grasso said. “Currently, if you accidently shoot someone it is covered by your policy because you did not do it intentionally.”

Grasso called the bill “another registration scheme.”

The bill is A3908. It was referred to the Assembly’s Insurance Committee and no vote had been scheduled.

SOURCE

 

Barrett, LaRue Tactical, Olympic Arms, York Arms, MidwayUSA, Cheaper Than Dirt, Spike’s Tactical: HEROS

February 24, 2013

Ever since the mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, the Left has rabidly pursued all manner of unconstitutional gun control legislation. Federal, state and local, the NeoComs stop at nothing to deprive us of our unalienable rights, endowed by our Creator. Yet all is not lost as long as we stand firm.

The National Institute of Justice, the research branch of the Justice Department, recently leaked a memo evaluating many of the White House’s preferred gun control measures. For example, the NIJ says that Dianne Feinstein‘s defensive weapons ban is “unlikely to have an impact on gun violence” because — wait for it — those firearms “are not a major contributor to gun crime.” Therefore, concludes the NIJ, in order for a ban to be effective, it would have to include no exemptions and be paired with a mandatory buyback program.

Notably, Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA) just introduced legislation to impose a 10 percent tax on concealable firearms, aiming to fund a federal buyback with the revenue collected.

The NIJ reaches similar conclusions about magazine capacity limits, which would be ineffective while exempting currently owned magazines, and universal background checks, which won’t work without national gun registration because criminals use straw purchasers or steal weapons in order to avoid background checks.

The question is, will Obama and the NeoComs pursue NIJ’s recommended “fixes” to their obviously flawed plans?

While movement has temporarily slowed at the federal level, the states are busy enacting their own draconian gun restrictions. In Colorado, House Democrats passed four anti-gun bills including outlawing concealed carry on college campuses (more on that below), requiring universal background checks and limiting magazine capacity to 15 rounds.

As we noted last week, Magpul, maker of the popular PMAG magazine for AR-15 platform weapons, plans to carry through with its threat to leave the state because of the mag cap limit. Democrats tried offering them an exemption to manufacture their magazines in-state as long as they didn’t sell them there, but Magpul wisely didn’t take the bait. “If we’re able to stay in Colorado and manufacture a product, but law-abiding citizens of the state were unable to purchase the product, customers around the state and the nation would boycott us for remaining here,” said Doug Smith, Magpul’s chief operating officer. The move would take $85 million and hundreds of jobs from Colorado.

In Washington, a bill is in the works with a requirement to “safely and securely store” any legally owned “assault weapons.” It would also provide sheriffs with the power to, “no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance,” upon penalty of up to one year in jail.

Maryland Democrats seek to ban “possessing, selling, offering to sell, transferring, purchasing, or receiving an assault weapon.” That goes beyond Feinstein’s federal ban proposal in that it also bans “possessing.” Furthermore, no one under the age of 21 may possess ammunition, meaning they also can’t hunt. Things aren’t going well in the Used-to-Be Free State.

New York, an early adopter of unconstitutional restrictions post-Newtown, isn’t done. Democrats introduced a bill to require that all gun owners in New York “obtain and continuously maintain a policy of liability insurance in an amount not less than one million dollars specifically covering any damages resulting from any negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person.” Failing this, a gun owner will face “immediate revocation of such owner’s registration, license and any other privilege to own” a firearm. Privilege? Our copy of the Constitution recognizes the right to keep and bear arms.

Speaking of New York, numerous gun manufacturers and sellers are refusing to sell to law enforcement officers or government agencies anything that can’t be legally bought by the average citizen. This move applies to any other state that bans weapons or magazines while making exceptions for law enforcement officers. So far, none of the big three law enforcement suppliers — Smith & Wesson, Glock and Sig Sauer — have joined the effort, but Barrett, LaRue Tactical, Olympic Arms, York Arms, MidwayUSA, Cheaper Than Dirt, Spike’s Tactical and several others have announced the policy change.

We greatly respect and appreciate our nation’s law enforcement officers, but if a seven-round mag is good enough for a civilian, it’s good enough for a police officer. And if civilians can’t own modern muskets, police shouldn’t either. Civilians and law enforcement personnel are fellow citizens, not subjects.

State news isn’t all bad, however. Ten states have proposed legislation to preempt federal gun bans and protect lawful gun owners. Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Washington have all proposed legislation to protect firearms made and kept within their borders. Alaska, Arizona, Montana and Tennessee have already passed such laws.

Finally, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia thinks state guns bans will reach the Court. We agree, and we don’t doubt Scalia is itching to reiterate that the Court meant what it said in its Heller and McDonald rulings, and that the Second Amendment also means what it says.

During the debate in Colorado about concealed carry on campus, Democrat state Rep. Joe Salazar explained why women don’t need guns for self-defense against would-be rapists: “It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles. Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop … pop around at somebody.”

Hot Air’s Mary Katherine Ham retorted, “Well, after all, you might not get raped. In Salazar’s world, not only are women incapable of defending themselves against a physical threat, but they are incapable of even identifying a physical threat, and should therefore be deprived of the ability to try. Empowerment!”

Never fear, the University of Colorado posted some safety tips for avoiding rape, including “kick off your shoes if you have time and can’t run in them.” Failing that, “Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating. Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone.” They conclude, “Only you can decide which action is most appropriate.” Well, unless you decide carrying a firearm is appropriate. Call boxes, whistles and vomiting are peachy ideas, but a handgun would be far better. When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

Another legislator, Democrat State Senator Jesse Ulaberri, contended that people don’t need guns for self-defense because that just leads to a “whole crossfire.” And besides, the people in Tucson “stood up to defend themselves … and they did it with ball point pens.”

These are the people who think they know what’s best for you.

The Patriot Post

Repeal the 22ed Amendment? epic fail obama’s wet dream…

January 25, 2013

Only FDR has served more than two terms as President of The United States… but that could change with the introduction of H.J. Resolution 15.

New York Democrat Representative, Jose Serrano last week introduced a piece of legislation aimed at “an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.”

All past efforts to repeal the 22nd Amendment have failed, but we believe this time it could be different due to an unprecedented economic force that’s underway right now.

To see all the details of why we believe Obama will remain in power through 2020, click here.

SOURCE: GOPUSA

Obama Goes Nuts and Offers Anti-gunners Wish List

January 18, 2013
Most of his crazy proposals are so extreme,
only few of his initiatives pose serious threat
Surrounded by child-props, Barack Obama yesterday proposed a semi-automatic ban so extreme that it could potentially outlaw up to 50% of all long guns in circulation and up to 80% of all handguns.
Originally, Obama’s allies had announced they would reintroduce the 1994 ban on commonly-owned, defensive firearms.  That was until they found out that they would look like fools, since that semi-auto ban was largely the law of Connecticut on the day the Newtown shooting occurred — and didn’t cover Adam Lanza’s AR-15.  After that, gun grabbers just kept adding more and more guns until they would register (or ban) a huge percentage of the defensive guns in existence.
So where are we now?
Obama’s crazy gun ban is now being denounced by many Democrats. And, although you don’t “pop the cork” until Congress adjourns, it will probably take the magazine ban down the toilet with it.
This means that gun owners’ focus must now shift to the part of Obama’s agenda which poses the most danger because it is most likely to move:  the requirement that the government approve every gun transfer in America — the so-called universal background check.
All of you know why this is a problem.  But how do you explain it so simply that even a congressman can understand?  Let’s take a crack at that:
ONE:  THE FBI‘S “SECRET LIST” WHICH IS BEING USED TO BAR AMERICANS FROM OWNING GUNS IS INSIDIOUS
The FBI’s database currently contains the names of more than 150,000 veterans.  They served their country honorably.  They did nothing wrong.  But, because they sought counseling for a traumatic experience while risking their lives for America, they have had their constitutional rights summarily revoked, with no due process whatsoever.
You want to know something else?  The “secret list” could soon include tens of millions of Americans — including soldiers, police, and fire fighters — with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder, and even post-partem depression.  This would be achieved under the 23 anti-gun “executive actions” that Obama announced yesterday.
TWO:  THE FBI REFUSES TO INSURE US THAT IT ISN’T TURNING ITS “SECRET LIST” INTO A NATIONAL GUN REGISTRY
Our legislative counsel drafted the Smith amendment in 1998 to prohibit the FBI from using the Brady Check system to tax gun buyers or put their names into a gun registry.  But the FBI refuses to tell us — or even to tell U.S. Senators — how (or whether) it is complying with the Smith amendment.  Why in the world should we give the FBI more authority and more names if it abuses the authority it already has?
This is the inherent problem with any background check, where gun buyers’ names are given to a government bureaucrat.  Is there any way to make sure that once a name is entered into a computer, that it doesn’t stay there permanently?
This concern is especially valid, considering how federal agents are already skirting the laws against gun owner registration.  Several dealers around the country have informed GOA that the ATF is increasingly going into gun shops and just xeroxing all of the 4473’s, giving them the names of every gun owner who purchased a gun through that shop — and setting up the basis for a national registration system.
This is illegal under the 1986 McClure-Volkmer law, but that has apparently not stopped it from being done.  If every gun in America has to go through a dealer, this will create a mechanism to compile a list of every gun owner in America.  And, as we have seen with New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who has just been legislatively handed such a list, when that happens, the talk immediately turns to “confiscation.”
THREE:  AS A RESULT, REQUIRING GOVERNMENT APPROVAL OF EVERY GUN OWNER IN AMERICA WOULD DO NOTHING BUT CREATE A PLATFORM FOR NATIONAL GUN REGISTRATION AND CONFISCATION.
As alluded to above, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo now has a comprehensive gun registry.  This is the most dangerous thing that New York legislators could have done — as Cuomo has made it clear he’s considering gun confiscation of lawfully-owned firearms.
“I don’t think legitimate sportsmen are going to say, ‘I need an assault weapon to go hunting,’” Cuomo said.  “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”
How nice.  He’ll let gun owners “permit” their guns for now — so that, presumably, they can be confiscated later, just as certain defensive weapons were confiscated in New York City during the Mayor David Dinkins administration in 1991.
FOUR:  THE FBI REFUSES TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW GUARANTEEING THE RIGHTS OF LEGITIMATE PURCHASERS
The Brady Law requires that the FBI correct erroneous denials of firearms purchases.  And it requires that it reply, initially, within five days.  According to attorneys familiar with the problem, the FBI NEVER, EVER, EVER complies with the law.  In fact, it increasingly tells aggrieved legitimate purchasers to “sue us” — at a potential cost of tens of thousands of dollars.
FIVE:  EVEN UNDER CURRENT LAW, THE BRADY SYSTEM HAS BROKEN DOWN REPEATEDLY
 
Since its inception, the FBI’s computer systems have often gone offline for hours at a time — sometimes for days.  And when it fails on weekends, it results in the virtual blackout of gun sales at gun shows across the country.
According to gun laws expert Alan Korwin, “With the NICS computer out of commission, the only place you could legally buy a firearm — in the whole country — was from a private individual, since all dealers were locked out of business by the FBI’s computer problem.”
Of course, now the President wants to eliminate that last bastion of freedom!
Recently, the FBI’s system went down on Black Friday, angering many gun dealers and gun buyers around the country.  “It means we can’t sell no damn guns,” said Rick Lozier, a manager at Van Raymond Outfitters in Maine.  “If we can’t call it in, we can’t sell a gun.  It’s cost us some money.”
The bottom line:  Our goal is to insure that Obama’s politicized dog-and-pony show doesn’t produce one word of new gun law.  Not a single word.
And the biggest danger right now is universal background checks — which would create a platform for national registration and confiscation.
We would note that, in addition, Obama is attempting to illegally enact gun control through unlawful and unconstitutional “executive actions.”  Click here to read about these.
ACTION:  Click here to contact your senators and congressman.  Urge them to oppose the universal background check because it is a platform for national firearms registration and confiscation.

Governor Cuomo making preparations to confiscate New York’s guns…

January 4, 2013

It can happen anywhere folks. At least where people allow others to rule them rather than running their own lives as they should. Places where neo-communist’s and socialist’s have taken control and instituted their heavy handed brand of authoritarianism.

Yes, it actually was the Thursday before Christmas when Andrew Cuomo decided that New Yorkers might like to know his thoughts about the right to bear arms in NY State. God-fearing and government-fearing New Yorkers were quite disappointed. The Governor told the citizens of New York that he was seriously considering confiscating their guns. Cuomo was not kidding. He intends to take away some types of guns at a future date.

So close to Christmas, the Governor was playing the role of a reverse Santa Claus (OK, a Grinch to be exact) for those who still believe in the Second Amendment. New York already has the fourth toughest gun control laws in the nation. Despite such tight gun control, who among US feels safe travelling to New York? Are any of our fears based on the plain folk being armed—having guns in their homes? Or is it because we think criminals in NY will be eternally armed?

On his web site, shortly after Cuomo’s Albany speech, a blogger known as Monty on Guns offered a sobering thought about the left’s new strategy to divide gun owners by weapon types. Feinstein will be doing the same thing soon on a national level. Monty sees their end objective to eventually assure there are no types of guns permitted in America. There are a lot of weapon types that concerned citizens, fearing our government more than burglars, would like to possess to protect against a tyrannical intrusion of elected officials in our lives.

The major purpose of the 2nd Amendment of course is a strong defense against government tyranny. It is not to protect the right to go target shooting. The founders feared a government gone-bad more than anything else. When the confiscation begins, they will start with the weapons that only somebody really trying to protect themselves from a bad government would want to have—semi automatic one shot at a time weapons, and those rapid-fire weapons that have been banned for manufacture, other than to the government since 1987.

If the government goes bad, and they are targeting Y-O-U, would you look for a pug pistol or a Molotov Cocktail? Would you look for both if you had either in your arsenal? You do not have to register Molotov Cocktails!

The left and the corrupt progressive media likes to call all of these threatsassault weapons,” hoping to sway those neutral on the Second Amendment to their side—the side that wants to disarm America to make us all helpless to any perpetration. Here is his quote—directly from Monty with no changes—even syntax:

“The tactic is to divide gun owners that have guns primarily for hunting from those that enjoy AR’s and other military styled guns for sport, self defence and yes, even hunting. It seeks to divide gun owners based on what types of guns they prefer and for what uses they enjoy their guns. It divides the handgun shooters from shotgun enthusiasts; 3 gun shooters from hunters; semi-auto owners against bolt action owners. If they can get gun owners to side with them against a certain type of firearm, their tactic is advanced and their overall plan for all gun owners will move forward….with help of gun owners. Make no mistake about what the endstate is for these people. There is no difference to them between an AK 47 and your Grandfather’s 60 year old Browning Auto 5 shotgun.Once they get rid of one type of gun, they ALWAYS move on to the next. Ask our friends in the U.K and Australia about that.”

Adding his progressive voice to the mounting list of liberal progressives across America that have little use for the Constitution, its amendments, or any of the writings of the founders, Governor Cuomo was compelled to get on the anti-gun-owners list before it again becomes passé to talk about gun control.

With his Thursday December 19th speech, the Governor earned the right to sip some tea with Hollywood’s finest, including little Miss Lindsay Lohan! But, we know she is not pure on the issue as she has at least once handled a gun—pshaw! As Kojak would say, if convinced to be in charge: “turn it in baby!” The fear most Americans have about turning anything in is to whom, but more importantly, why?

The Cuomo package may be proposed as early as January when the Governor delivers his state of the state address. The big news is that Cuomo is one of the first political opportunists to suggest that confiscation of the people’s guns is an OK option.

What a great boon for the criminals in NY to know they will no longer risk bodily harm when they choose to make the property of any New Yorker theirs during their next burglary. Without the threat of getting a piece of lead in the butt, the burglary business may no longer qualify for hazardous duty pay in NY. Perhaps they can finally get regular rates on their Obamacare policies.

New York continues to be a very liberal state. It was always in Obama’s camp and the President has never embraced the notion of guns for the people. And he will not do so now while Cuomo collects them. So, the fine people of NY will get what they asked for when the Governor acts on his confiscation notion. Perhaps you can hire guards armed with sticks or entrenching tools as weapons as did the military with its new basic training recruits for years in the 1960’s and 1970’s. No new recruits had guns back then even when guarding the training compound.

Perhaps to encourage Governor Cuomo to take the strongest action possible, New Yorkers ought to self impose a 5% surcharge on their State Income Tax payment this year to help congratulate the Governor on this fine idea!

In fact, even before the formal proclamation in his state of the state speech, there is no reason to wait to begin turning in weapons. There is nothing in the law that says all New York gun owners must keep their unnecessary property indefinitely. Therefore, to really show the Governor that he is right on the mark, all NY gun owners, to show support for the confiscation idea, should without hesitation donate their huge investments in firearm technology to the soon to-be-built NY State smeltery.

Perhaps rather than market value, fair compensation would be about 50% of the weight of the materials rendered from the arsenal. The government’s cost of confiscation can be made up by the other 50%. That would be a painless tax for all residents who find no use for their firearms. Who likes gun-owners anyway? Perhaps the government can use confiscated and pre-smelted weapons to save dollars on the purchase of military and police weapons.

In fact, perhaps the whole fiscal cliff notion would have been solved merely by Americans turning in their guns to our benevolent, friendly government for smelting or for redistribution of the pre-smelted materials. Perhaps AG Eric Holder can still take a few tractor-trailer loads of some pre-smelted items to Mexico to get an even better price to bolster tax revenues for even more redistribution.

Gun owners who come in immediately on the proposed program should be paid by the pound at a 100% level for the special metals, wood, and hard plastics that can be extracted / rendered. When the legislation is enacted, the rate would probably go down to 50%. He who hesitates is lost.

Once all guns are in government hands, nobody would ever have to worry again about any problems such as the recent sad situation in Connecticut ever again. The guns will be gone and the former NY gun owners will have received a small stipend for turning them in. Cuomo is clearly a genius. Why didn’t Hitler or Stalin or Mao think of that first before they confiscated the guns of their opponents?

I hope Governor Cuomo plans to give all of the good-hearted NY criminals out there the opportunity to turn their guns ahead of time so there is never a period in which the law-abiding citizens without guns will have to worry about criminals packing weapons.

Perhaps a month would be necessary to collect all weapons from criminals. Because of Cuomo’s great speech, criminals will more than likely line up in droves in front of the smeltery to do their part. Officials just have to watch that the criminals do not trick the system by turning in cap gun imitations of assault weapons to gain the monetary credit.

Projections from some citizen gun advocates are that at least two or three criminals, blessed with a Christmas born-again moment, will turn-in their guns. As long as the rest of the criminals promise the NY Governor that they will not use their guns ever again, accountants and odds-makers have information to conclude that everybody will be safe—since law-abiding citizens would be forced to turn in their weapons and get their nasty firearms off the streets.

After such a good-faith effort on the part of the criminals, all law abiding citizens, including security guards that had been packing—those that might be on duty in front of the casinos or in front of Hollywood homes, banks, schools, and of course the Secret Service, and the governor’s personal body guards, would be safe. What a good deal!

After all, there would be no more guns about to worry! Even the President’s body guards would have no problem turning in their “assault” weapons to the approved government smelters. When the Cuomo plan becomes so popular that it goes national, the rest of the country will have a model for how to act. Anybody really wanting to kill anybody else would still be permitted to get that job done but, they would not be permitted to use guns.

They would be forced to use kitchen knives. Recently, because of their gun-control laws, by the way, kitchen knives have become the murder weapon of choice in the UK.

The scent of weapons burning can give all Americans that feeling of security and freedom that we in the US have clearly been lacking recently. Liberal progressives believe sincerely that the right to bear arms as a constitutional amendment probably was not intended for regular people anyway.
Finally, with no more guns, the country can be safe for the long haul, as long as the government never decides to go bad and use its guns against the people. But, when has a government ever gone bad? Perhaps now is just the right time to simply trust the government?

Liberal progressives have been suggesting that we all must act immediately to stop violence in America, regardless of whether just a little freedom and liberty are lost along the way. They feel it will be for the greater good.

Ben Franklin never got to hear the advice of the liberal progressives in his day. You may remember Franklin, an American founding father and a deep patriot. One of his famous admonitions to Americans Citizens goes like this: “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Perhaps Franklin would change his mind today if he had the privilege of learning the facts from NY Governor Cuomo or NY Senator Schumer. Perhaps Franklin had been drinking the day he was quoted.

Madison too was not as enlightened as the NY pair of lawmakers when he said: [The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. —James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

As they try to dismember our Constitution one piece at a time, many progressive liberals in authority think the founders were just goofs who were drunk with power. The criminals surely would agree. The founders, as many who study history know, were more worried about the government being armed and going bad than protection from the Indians or some fellow colonists who had a bad childhood. The 2nd Amendment was to protect the Citizens from the government.

To get the Cuomo resolution passed into law, the Cuomo government would more than likely promise to behave well for all time henceforth. Since we all know the word of the government is rock solid, New Yorkers would be safe and well served at that point in time when they smell the aroma of the smoke of their own guns burning in the NY Smeltery. We Americans all trust that government will always do the right thing as it always has—in all countries—from the beginning of time.

Rather than harden into untrusting citizens, perhaps it is time for the people to bet that government officials will be righteous and the criminals will shortly thereafter become just as righteous? Rather than trust a personal firearm, the people can be encouraged to trust its government—regardless of what those silly founders had to say about that.

And, trusting the Cuomo initiative, when it passes in NY, will help it spread quickly to other states. All citizens of the US then will know it is time for all of US in the US to peacefully lay down our arms and prove for the history books once and for all, that Governor Cuomo had a great idea to reduce arms in America. As sure as there was never a Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, or Mao, we can then all be pleased to live happily ever after.

In such a Utopian world, no armed guards would be needed for any politician, including Governor Cuomo. Additionally, the eleven armed guards now employed at the Sidwell, where Sasha and Malia Obama attend school could be dismissed. After the fervor with which the Governor made his case on the Thursday before Christmas, surely, he would not be looking for an exception to his own rule.

Isn’t it just amazing how simple solutions can be, when they are purely brilliant. New Yorkers should be very proud of their Governor. Finally a good and righteous man appears on the scene with a simply brilliant notion! I can’t wait to see the first smoke fume.

SOURCE and Full Story

Ultra-liberal senators Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY)? More like big government commies…

July 31, 2012
Anti-gun Lautenberg trying to
put amendment on Cybersecurity Bill
Washington is, to say the least, not a town known for its high moral standards.
 
But there is, perhaps, no one with more expertise in milking shameless advantage out of national tragedy than ultra-liberal senators Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY).
 
So it can hardly be a surprise that, this week, these anti-gun Senators intend to offer an amendment to the cybersecurity bill which would prohibit the manufacture of magazines with a capacity of over 10 rounds.
 
They appear oblivious to the fact that their “gun ban” mentality created a deadly situation in Aurora, Colorado, where there was a room with a number of trained military marksmen — and none of them were allowed to have a gun.
 
Any one of those individuals could have made a big difference.  Heck, does anyone doubt there would have been a different outcome if George Zimmerman had been in the theater?
 
Incidentally, lest anyone think that banning magazines is the be-all-and-end-all for Lautenberg, he has already announced that he intends to follow up his magazine ban with legislation to monitor and limit your purchases of ammunition.
 
Explains the clueless Lautenberg:  “No sportsman needs 100 rounds to shoot a duck ….”
 
So this Einstein believes you don’t need 100 rounds of ammunition?  Who decided that our Bill of Rights should be a “Bill of Needs”? 
 
It’s time to nip this nasty piece of work in the bud and ensure that his efforts to exploit innocent victims for political gain do not go any further.
ACTIONClick here to contact your Senators.  Demand that they vote against the Lautenberg-Schumer magazine-ban amendment to the cybersecurity bill.

Fools one and all.

 


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 198 other followers

%d bloggers like this: