I worked as a Suffolk County police officer for 20 years until I retired. The best thing I ever did was escape from New York and move to South Carolina six and half years ago. The police do a great job but you cannot depend on them to protect you. The police do their best but unfortunately by the time they arrive to your house you'll either be dead or seriously injured that is why people need to take measures to protect themselves. That is why I support the right for every law abiding citizen to have access to as many guns and his many rounds of ammo as they believe is necessary to protect themselves.
I would be willing to bet that the police that protect Cuomo have magazines with a higher capacity then Cuomo is willing to allow the average law-abiding citizen to have.
By the way I do not own any high-capacity magazines all my magazines are normal capacity the 30, 50 and 100 round magazines I own are all normal capacity magazines.
No one needs more than 16 ounces of soft drink either!
Are Cuomo and Bloomberg somehow related? Or perhaps New York's water fluoridation process ran amok at sometime in their youth.
The only real solution to this "gun problem" is to repeal Boyle's Law. Should have never been passed to begin with.
First, the 2nd amendment isn't about hunting. Its about protecting our freedom. Its about preventing tyranny.
Now, if it were about hunting. "No one hunts with an assault rifle." Wrong. Absolutely. 100's of thousands of people hunt with "assault rifles." He goes on to say no one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer. The Ruger 10-22 is one of the best selling guns in America, and comes standard with a 10 round magazine. There is no factory magazine with a 7 cartridge limit for this gun. All tube fed .22's carry more than 10 rounds. So many if not most .22 rifles now on the market are illegal to own or sell in New York. So much for a kid saving lawn mowing money to buy himself his first .22 hunting rifle...
The .223 round is very popular for hunting all sorts of game; from fox and coyotes to deer. The Ruger Mini-14 is chambered in this calaiber, and is a target of the so called assault rifle ban. I have hunted with this gun and know many others who have. So its a total falsehood that "no one hunts with assault rifles."
But this argument isn't about hunting; its about our constitutional right to fight against tyranny. So who will now exercise that right?
Cuomo is not only wrong but he is wrong. It does take some people 10 bullets to shoot a deer. I have seen it happen. And much more importantly, unless I missed it, the second amendment never mentions the word deer or hunting.
He sounded like an absolute idiot screaming this...like he thought of the most unique comment to date on the subject!!! Stupid gutless politicians!!! reactionary this is all this is...people act with your own opinion not with what makes the person next you happy...
1) Who the hell are YOU to decide how big my clip is?
2) Typical BS from the extreme Left. New york, you are idiots and deserve everything this
piece of trash does to you. That goes for every Obama voter in the US. You will get what
you voted for - TYRANNY.
3) If he wants to try to take my weapons & ammo, I invite him to TRY. We'll be waiting.
My neighborhood is already organizing to defend each other.
Take note that Cuomo is once again misinforming the collective unconscious by framing the 2nd Amendment as the right to hunt.
I guess Mr. Cuomo doesn't know that we need 10 bullets, 20 bullets, 30 bullets, 100 bullets to protect us from tyranny. That would be the type of control and authority over the populace that Mr. Cuomo espouses! Don't give up your CONSTITUTIONALLY guaranteed 2nd Amendment rights.
Cuomo doesn't tell me crap since he is not a king and I'm not his peasant. However, he can come to Texas and kiss my ass. We are still the land of the free and the home of the brave even though some states elect mongoloid idiots.
The late, great Win Rockefeller -- former lieutenant governor of Arkansas -- made one of the best points about the Second Amendment I've heard in the past decade. He was speaking to a group of students at the University of Arkansas when one of them observed that "no one really needs a gun."
"You don't need free speech," Rockefeller replied. "Need's got nothing to do with it. It's a right."
Our government preaches about having extra water, food, batteries etc., in case of an emergency. I have taken their advice and am always prepared with extra ammo as well. Where I keep it is my business.
This logic is so simple it hurts to think otherwise.
The 2nd amendment is about the people protecting themselves from a Democratic Party government which means our guns should be as good as theirs. It’s that simple.
I don't own any "High Capacity" magazines, the 15 round magazines I have for my Sig are Standard Capacity, they are the magazine designed for and sold with the sidearm, so they are "Standard". The 30 round STANAG magazines for my AR are the Standard Issue magazines. Now, I could go out and purchase a 100 round BETA Magazine for my AR and yes, you could label that as a "High Cap Mag". However they are a seriously heavy unit when loaded up, which is why I forego that option and they're kind of silly in my own opinion, if you choose to go with one, well you're the one that has to carry it so it's no skin off my nose. The point is this, we should not play the "gun grabber's" game, my AR is a semi automatic rifle, not an "Assault Rifle". It is not a Military Rifle, it is a Replica of a Military Rifle. I don't have "High Caps", I have Standard Cap Mags. The terms for and nomenclature of firearms are defined, stick to those definitions and don't allow them to "redefine" the terms.
The founders made it clear that the second Amendment was all about preventing a tyrannical government from taking over. That's all it is for. High-capacity magazines and all the other pathetic leftist excuses for dilluting our ability to protect ourselves are non sequiturs.
If Andrew Cuomo ever kills a deer, it will be his driver that hits one in his limo. Otherwise get your tail out in the woods and see how easy it is Andy.
You are a STUPID, STUPID man. The second amendment is NOT about hunting. And YES we do nee 10 rounds of some caliber bullets to stop some people, not everyone is of the same weight or build.
It is not about hunting, it is about stopping those who are trying to harm us. And you can take that any way you want.
These people are dumber than a box of rocks. Now they want a limit on how much you can protect yourself. If you can't take down a would-be killer in six shots, it's your own freaking fault and too freaking bad. A group? Well, I guess the joke's on you because your life isn't important enough for us to allow you enough bullets to fend off all of them. If we allow you ten bullets, you'll kill everyone in the neighborhood because hey, if you have a gun you're going to use it.
Complete idiots. I don't know what their logic is, but to hell with them. We have to shut them down.
Stalin's Gun Control Methods Worked Remember Your History Or Be Doomed To Repeat It !
Mr. Cuomo, I want my gun to hold as many rounds as I need to keep shooting until the perp drops. Sir can you tell me how many that will be?
Spoken like a true global authoritarian and by someone who obviously hasn't done a lot of hunting. Classic gun-grabbing response that can be easily debunked. Hey Governor Coma, ever run into a bear while hunting? Ever run into a badger? How many bullets do you think it takes to take one of those down? Certain calibers of ammunition will not fully penetrate the hide of one of those creatures and .38 caliber bullets have been known to bounce right off of the skull of a bear, especially a Grizz. Did you ever see this video, Governor Coma?
Granted, there aren't African lions roaming the countryside. The point is, compared to a Grizzly or Kodiak, a lion is smaller and lighter. Most of the men in the video were using rifles and if you noticed, some were high-powered rifles with scopes. The muzzle velocity of a rifle is much different than that of a pistol and so are the rounds used. How many shots did it take to kill the lion and how many people were shooting? Now, if you were by yourself in the woods just innocently hunting a deer or elk and you saw a huge bear and that bear charged at you, would you use a rifle or a pistol to shoot the bear? What would the caliber of the pistol be and how many shots do you think it would take to defend yourself against the bear? With smaller bears, pepper spray or something similar might work to stave them off, but that is no guarantee that a bear will not dismiss it and charge again. One has to be prepared for any contingency.
So the answer to your argument Governor Coma, is that it would be necessary to carry a pistol or other weapon capable of taking high-capacity magazines for SELF DEFENSE. It is what is called a contingency plan, which is what a prepared person would do if he or she plans to go on a hunting expedition. Those in law enforcement and the military would also vehemently disagree with you, Governor Coma and for obvious reasons.
Interesting that Cuomo and the other politicians that want Gun Control have full protection from people that have an arsenal of Guns. They just want OUR Guns, controlled.
The Rifleman was an American Western television program starring Chuck Connors as homesteader Lucas McCain. I'm sure Gov. Cuomo would label Lucas McCain's 120 year old rifle, a Winchester Model 1892, as an assault weapon because it could hold 11 rounds.
BTW, according Connecticut is ranked as having the fifth-toughest gun-control laws in the country by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, with a score of 58 out of 100 points.
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
Thus, tougher gun laws wouldn't haven't prevented the Newtown horrific tragedy.
Its a stupid point. Is 9 rounds ok then? I love these stupid lefty politicians "I have a gun too...!" (after a quick call to the house keeper "hey, what's the brand name on that old shotgun in the attic?") - would like to see the guy go out with it... it would be like Kerry on one of his trips where he was fumbling around trying to figure out which end was the dangerous one.
No honest person could ever think that the second amendment was about hunting. Period.
The constitution was written by men afraid of big government, as a document specifically designed to LIMIT government and distribute power to the people, and the bill of rights, which the second amendment was specifically added as a single right by itself, was added specifically as an extra and redundant protection and limits against the government they just finished limiting...
...and they think its about "hunting"?
Here's your sign.
This is the exact discussion I use with my neighbors, and they stand there for a minute, and slowly they look at me like "I've been lied to my whole life..."
Works great in Socratic method too. Ask them and correct the answers:
For hunting? K... then...
What is the purpose of the constitution?
Why did they write it?
What did they just get done fighting a war against?
What is the purpose of the bill of rights?
Do you still think it is about "hunting"?
If they are logical or honest at all, you'll get to watch a sunrise in their eyes as reason ignites. It helps to hand them a copy of the constitution when you do this. Let them discover it, it makes it harder for them to deny that way.
Along with James Madison, George Mason is called the "Father of the United States Bill of Rights." Like anti-federalist Patrick Henry, he was a leader of those who pressed for the addition of explicit States rights and individual rights to the U.S. Constitution as a balance to the increased federal powers.
His concerns included deterring tyrannical government, repelling invasion, suppressing insurrection, facilitating a natural right of self-defense and enabling the people to organize a militia system. His efforts eventually succeeded in convincing the Federalists to add the first ten amendments of the Constitution known as the Bill of Rights, were based on the earlier Virginia Declaration of Rights, which Mason had drafted in 1776.
Of course a lefty like Cuomo will not be beholden to the Constitution or the Bill of Rights which define the rights of the people and states. To progressives our founding documents are no-longer needed and just get in the way of the government determining what's in our best interests as Americans. That's why a progressive like Cuomo has found common ground with a 'Blue Dog' Senator Joe Manchin who was the first I heard use the foolhardy "10 bullets to kill a deer" spin. BTW, 'Blue Dog Democrats' have no voice in their party and are used as tools of the lefties.
Since I live in New York, I decided I will be buying new a gun and some larger magazines. Let's see if the far left lunatics like Cuomo have the cojones to try to take fire arms from we the people.
Cuomo and the rest of his ilk are using this meme of 'nobody needs ten bullets to kill a deer' because it unconsciously appeals to the feelies on the left, who are sure to be for disarming everybody so that the deer can be 'saved'.
It is a cheap, emotional trick, but it nicely takes the eyes of the feelies away from the actual words of the 2nd Amendment and what they really mean.
Well to be honest, Im not a real fan of killing animals….at least the not the four legged kind.
Play nice in the neighborhood and everything should be ok. But just in case….We'd like to be prepared, thank you.
Wyoming lawmakers propose gun protection legislation preventing enforcement of federal gun control restrictions in their state
Ha! I live in Wyoming and we don't have to have a license to conceal and carry. That law was passed almost a couple of years ago.
I'm glad they are protecting our Second Amendment rights; however, they're kicking the idea around on raising our fuel taxes by 10 cents per gallon. We do have some of the cheapest fuel prices in the country, but I don't want to pay more just because our lawmakers think there is room to move on the premise that we already pay less for fuel than those in other states. That smacks of "redistribution" to me.
Anyway, I believe our gun laws serve a dual purpose. One, to protect our Constitutional rights and two, to make it less attractive for leftist environmentalists, gun-grabbers, et al to move and reside in Wyoming...Jackson Hole aside, since it is really the only town in Wyoming that is occupied by a bunch of left-wing types.
At least they are willing to keep the feds at bay. Do you have enough support to get the conceal and carry included in this legislation? Would love to see it tied to the consortium with MN or the one with FL so when we test we could carry in your state.
They do have enough support to include it. Whether they will or not is another story. If WY could tie in with other states, I don't see anything that would prevent that here. It depends on the leadership and the amount of support here, which is usually on the pro-Constitution side.
Hey, Orangeone, did you see the bit of Maobamacare where Harry Reid had added that the feds may not collect info on legal ownership of weapons or ammo in the Maobamacare bill?
I did! And I'm still ROFL!!!! Oh Harry is piddin' on the floor and someone better be labeling that hazardous material :)
I know and somehow I missed the registration provision Scoop rec'd the shoutout from Rush for. Gotta find time to re-read it.
I'm not sure. I only read the 2,700 page bill once :) and long-term care was not my focus, it was the 21 tax provisions.
But isn't it part of Maobamacare? and wasn't that written as a single, unseparable bill? So, if one part is repealed it's all repealed.
The long-term care was pulled. The study of it is in the fiscal cliff law. I don't know if there are lawsuits on this or not, check FreedomWorks, I think they track the lawsuits.
Funny, isn't it? Now, I also heard that they have stricken the CARE (long term care) portion of Maobamacare down. Isn't that just one large unseparable bill? And if so, doesn't that mean that Maobamacare is no longer law?
BTW, GREAT to have you back.