If they really wanted to make it safe they would be real socailists and give free guns to everybody. If everybody is armed then everybody is safe exept for the raccoons (they taste like chicken) squirrel is good too (more tender than rat), but it you have to work around the tiremarks. Anyway new Yourk should ban NOT having guns instead of banning guns.
1. The Second Amendment isn't about hunting or sports. It isn't about the concerns of the rich. It's about self-defense and defense of liberty.
2. New York Safe? Bullshit. Yet another title for a law meant to deceive the public.
3. Good bye to mental health privacy.
4. See why registration is a bad idea? The government gets a list.
5. Do you think criminals will run checks in deals between themselves?
6. Background checks on ammunition? The system is struggling to keep up with checks already.
7. Seven rounds now? See, one infringement just leads to another.
8. He wants to make a murder conviction require a life sentence? Well, gee, he has one good idea.
9. He says, "We don't know," about how many "assault weapons" are in New York. That's the idea, you control freak. The more the government knows, the less free the citizens are.
10. What negotiation? It went straight through with no opposition, proving what shits the whole bunch of New York politicians are.
11. Who's crying out for help in New York? Your fellow control freaks? Waaaaaa!
No public discussion and the reps didn't even read it? Ah, the Era of Hope and Change, when more and more bills run through before they can even be read.
"I tip my hat to the new Constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around... Meet the new boss...same as the old boss!"
Retired Mustang, you've got a good one there. The problem in New England has been that violent criminals are petted and felt sorry for and asked not to do their crimes again. Wasn't killing a cop already a 1st degree murder?
Tennesseean, that's the definitive rock song, one that every revolutionary and do-gooder should be required to listen to, comprehend, and write a fifty-page analysis of before going out into the world.
1. The Second Amendment (as was intended by the framers) doesn't protect hunting and sport any more than it protects a (nonexistent) individual right to "keep and bear Arms". The Constitution most certainly does not sanction the violent overthrow of the United States Government or any subject States, as you so claim. It is possible that Miller v. United States can be interpreted to endow a collective State "Militia" with all Military Arms (such as Assault weapons) within U.S. borders, (although it has been chosen to interpret this section to bear a different context) and therefore sanction all Military-Style Weapons on U.S. soil as some form of State property, to be appropriated for official use by non-individual entities.
4. The intended purpose of registration is to create an effective means of enforcing inevitable future policy.
6. Background check of Ammunition will serve to slow down sales nationwide. The good of such legislation in New York will be felt nationwide.
7. U.S. States may soon take the example of the National Firearms Agreement which was established by all Australian States, under the urging of former Prime Minister John Howard. This law only serves as a preamble to further legislation.
8. The recent tragedy may also inspire the Governor to rethink his position on Capital Punishment. There has been several attempts by the New York Legislature to reinstate capital punishment since it was declared unconstitutional.
10. It is a joyous occasion that one State has rid itself of the burdensome debate inherent in an multiple-party system.
In response to Tennesseean (and Greg Camps reply to such),
It is a fool who searches for ideological advice in musical lyrics. If you did not waste your time on such, and instead read something more substantial, you might have a more Correct opinion than that which you express here.
1. Your interpretation of Miller is patently false, but what should I expect since you pretty clearly show that you're our favorite troll.
4. Ah, the refreshing truth.
6. Nope, it'll just mean less will be shipped to NY, and more for the rest of us.
7. Fat chance in most places.
8. First decent idea you've had.
10. This is your best bit of trolling yet. *golf clap* and now piss off.
Finally, in regard to your final comment, I shall defer to the Bard:
"The man that hath no music in himself, Nor is not moved with concord of sweet sounds, Is fit for treasons, stratagems, and spoils. The motions of his spirit are dull as night, And his affections dark as Erebus. Let no such man be trusted. Mark the music."
E.N., no matter what you choose to call yourself now, once again, you come around, exercising your individual right to free expression. If you had the slightest bit of honesty, you'd admit that such a right exists and that we all have it. If we don't, then you have to justify your commenting here.
If they really wanted to make it safe they would be real socailists and give free guns to everybody. If everybody is armed then everybody is safe exept for the raccoons (they taste like chicken) squirrel is good too (more tender than rat), but it you have to work around the tiremarks. Anyway new Yourk should ban NOT having guns instead of banning guns.
ReplyDeleteDear Mr. Cuomo, you lying jackass:
ReplyDelete1. The Second Amendment isn't about hunting or sports. It isn't about the concerns of the rich. It's about self-defense and defense of liberty.
2. New York Safe? Bullshit. Yet another title for a law meant to deceive the public.
3. Good bye to mental health privacy.
4. See why registration is a bad idea? The government gets a list.
5. Do you think criminals will run checks in deals between themselves?
6. Background checks on ammunition? The system is struggling to keep up with checks already.
7. Seven rounds now? See, one infringement just leads to another.
8. He wants to make a murder conviction require a life sentence? Well, gee, he has one good idea.
9. He says, "We don't know," about how many "assault weapons" are in New York. That's the idea, you control freak. The more the government knows, the less free the citizens are.
10. What negotiation? It went straight through with no opposition, proving what shits the whole bunch of New York politicians are.
11. Who's crying out for help in New York? Your fellow control freaks? Waaaaaa!
12. Gov. Jackass, get ready for the lawsuits.
Greg,
Deletere: number 8
I have a better idea. If you are convicted of any crime involving a firearm you will go to prison and never get out.
+ 1, Greg.
DeleteBTW, regarding the quick ramming through, even the NY Times is uncomfortable with the secrecy and lack of public discussion:
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/new-yorks-gun-bill/?hp
No public discussion and the reps didn't even read it? Ah, the Era of Hope and Change, when more and more bills run through before they can even be read.
"I tip my hat to the new Constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around...
Meet the new boss...same as the old boss!"
Retired Mustang, you've got a good one there. The problem in New England has been that violent criminals are petted and felt sorry for and asked not to do their crimes again. Wasn't killing a cop already a 1st degree murder?
DeleteTennesseean, that's the definitive rock song, one that every revolutionary and do-gooder should be required to listen to, comprehend, and write a fifty-page analysis of before going out into the world.
In response to Greg Camp,
Delete1. The Second Amendment (as was intended by the framers) doesn't protect hunting and sport any more than it protects a (nonexistent) individual right to "keep and bear Arms". The Constitution most certainly does not sanction the violent overthrow of the United States Government or any subject States, as you so claim. It is possible that Miller v. United States can be interpreted to endow a collective State "Militia" with all Military Arms (such as Assault weapons) within U.S. borders, (although it has been chosen to interpret this section to bear a different context) and therefore sanction all Military-Style Weapons on U.S. soil as some form of State property, to be appropriated for official use by non-individual entities.
4. The intended purpose of registration is to create an effective means of enforcing inevitable future policy.
6. Background check of Ammunition will serve to slow down sales nationwide. The good of such legislation in New York will be felt nationwide.
7. U.S. States may soon take the example of the National Firearms Agreement which was established by all Australian States, under the urging of former Prime Minister John Howard. This law only serves as a preamble to further legislation.
8. The recent tragedy may also inspire the Governor to rethink his position on Capital Punishment. There has been several attempts by the New York Legislature to reinstate capital punishment since it was declared unconstitutional.
10. It is a joyous occasion that one State has rid itself of the burdensome debate inherent in an multiple-party system.
In response to Tennesseean (and Greg Camps reply to such),
It is a fool who searches for ideological advice in musical lyrics. If you did not waste your time on such, and instead read something more substantial, you might have a more Correct opinion than that which you express here.
Koba/E.N./Black Cap,
Delete1. Your interpretation of Miller is patently false, but what should I expect since you pretty clearly show that you're our favorite troll.
4. Ah, the refreshing truth.
6. Nope, it'll just mean less will be shipped to NY, and more for the rest of us.
7. Fat chance in most places.
8. First decent idea you've had.
10. This is your best bit of trolling yet. *golf clap* and now piss off.
Finally, in regard to your final comment, I shall defer to the Bard:
"The man that hath no music in himself,
Nor is not moved with concord of sweet sounds,
Is fit for treasons, stratagems, and spoils.
The motions of his spirit are dull as night,
And his affections dark as Erebus.
Let no such man be trusted. Mark the music."
T., The Who and Shakespeare on the same thread. I love it.
DeleteMight as well quote from the best, eh, Mikeb?
DeleteE.N., no matter what you choose to call yourself now, once again, you come around, exercising your individual right to free expression. If you had the slightest bit of honesty, you'd admit that such a right exists and that we all have it. If we don't, then you have to justify your commenting here.
I have made no claim that my statements concerning the non-existence of individual rights (due to a lack of individuality) apply to myself.
DeleteI'm not saying that rights don't exist, simply that they do not belong to you.
E.N., you're an individual. Nothing more and nothing less. You and I have the same rights.
DeleteThink about that next time you dream of world domination. You'll have to conquer your mother's ground floor first, though.