New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo On Gun Control: ‘Confiscation Could Be An Option’

[poncho]

In what will likely infuriate plenty of legal gun owners, New York’s Gov. Andrew Cuomo said this afternoon that he’d like the state’s legislature to consider all options in debating new gun control measures, including “confiscation” of “assault” weapons or “mandatory sales to the state” and “permitting.”

The state legislature will likely debate new gun-related laws after the governor introduces the thought in his upcoming State of the State address on January 9th, 2013.

TheBlaze reports that Cuomo told Albany’s WGDJ-AM that while gun control hasn’t been on the docket recently, he plans to reach out to state legislators and eventually submit a proposal for new laws. One of his stated goals is to change state laws regarding the possession of so-called “assault” weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.

According to Cuomo, his state’s existing laws regarding those matters have “more holes than Swiss cheese.”

CONTINUE . . .

"Mm hm, confiscation could be an option, mm hm" Andrew Cuomo

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

So then you would have cause for concern if you live in a blue state.....what else is new?

 

[poncho]

So then you would have cause for concern if you live in a blue state.....what else is new?

Is the second amendment less important in "blue states"?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Is the second amendment less important in "blue states"?

Apparently. :laugh:

 

[Matt Black]

Good. A step in the right direction. Now they need to follow through.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Good. A step in the right direction. Now they need to follow through.

I agree with a lot of what you say Matt, or at least can see your point of view, but confiscation would be a major mistake as it would only incite more trouble. Those who hold these guns deeply believe that the 2nd amendment gives them the right to have any weapon they want for whatever non-criminal purpose they want so they will simply ignore the law. If pressed I really believe they would fight to the death to keep their guns.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I agree with a lot of what you say Matt, or at least can see your point of view, but confiscation would be a major mistake as it would only incite more trouble. Those who hold these guns deeply believe that the 2nd amendment gives them the right to have any weapon they want for whatever non-criminal purpose they want so they will simply ignore the law. If pressed I really believe they would fight to the death to keep their guns.

That reallywont happen in cultures that already have them as a way of life. I live in a state that is the most regulated in the country...you can still get them but it is difficult. Everything is based on what type and why you want it in the first place. I cant get a handgun (legally) so I don't have one but I can get a shotgun because that is on the OK for hunting list..,but the criminal can get one...then I'm defenseless.

 

[Oldtimer]

In what will likely infuriate plenty of legal gun owners, New York’s Gov. Andrew Cuomo said this afternoon that he’d like the state’s legislature to consider all options in debating new gun control measures, including “confiscation” of “assault” weapons or “mandatory sales to the state” and “permitting.”

If this wasn't so deadly serious it would be downright funny.

While Cuomo is taking away legally owned guns, will he also be taking illegally owned ones, along with all the illegal drugs, and illegal residents in New York? Will he require special permits for those taking legal prescription drugs as yet another "option" in "new" population "control measures"?

Most people, with a backbone, will draw a line somewhere in the sand. History has shown time and time again that people will stand up for what they believe. Even put their lives on the line, knowing full well they will lose them. How many have offered their lives in service to our Lord? How many have given their lives to found and defend this land called America? How many have given their lives to save others in times of crisis?

Allowing the government to take away firearms may be the line in the sand that many won't cross. If they give up their Constitution right to bear arms, is the next line in the sand, the right to own a Christian Bible? To take the mark of the beast?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I saw Cuomo's video this morning.....I guess he is defining anything over 10 rounds as an "Assault Rifle"

 

[Matt Black]

I agree with a lot of what you say Matt, or at least can see your point of view, but confiscation would be a major mistake as it would only incite more trouble. Those who hold these guns deeply believe that the 2nd amendment gives them the right to have any weapon they want for whatever non-criminal purpose they want so they will simply ignore the law. If pressed I really believe they would fight to the death to keep their guns.

So in what sense can they claim to be 'law-abiding citizens', as so many of them do claim?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

So in what sense can they claim to be 'law-abiding citizens', as so many of them do claim?

The supposition is that the constitution overrides all other laws, therefore any law passed, which is their opinion violates the constitution, is not a valid law and need not be obeyed.

 

[Matt Black]

Surely it is for the courts - ultimately SCOTUS - to interpret the Constitution, not individual citizens?

 

[Revmitchell]

Surely it is for the courts - ultimately SCOTUS - to interpret the Constitution, not individual citizens?

Wrong! We all have a responsibility.

 

[Matt Black]

That way lies anarchy and lawlessness...

 

[pinoybaptist]

So in what sense can they claim to be 'law-abiding citizens', as so many of them do claim?

It is not a claim. by definition, when you own a gun legally you are a law-abiding citizen in that the checks required showed no evidence of any criminal record on you.
In essence, what is being done is that non-criminals are being punished for the criminal acts of others.
Cuomo should give assurance first that he can guarantee that the NY mob won't have guns, nor that criminal elements in the streets won't have guns, and if gun violence is inflicted on "clean" citizen by any of those elements what is he gonna do about it ?
The guns they should be running after are the guns in the possession of those who should not have them.
The ATF knows who they are, the FBI knows who they are, the local police know who they are.

 

[Revmitchell]

That way lies anarchy and lawlessness...

The other way lies tyranny and dictatorship. Maybe you should study up on the American Revolution.

 

[Matt Black]

But if ownership is made illegal (a prerequisite for confiscation) then those owning guns will no longer be 'law-abiding', will they?

 

[Revmitchell]

But if ownership is made illegal (a prerequisite for confiscation) then those owning guns will no longer be 'law-abiding', will they?

Ownership cannot be made illegal without a change to the constitution.

 

[Revmitchell]

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an extension of the natural right to self-defense and a hallmark of personal sovereignty. It is specifically insulated from governmental interference by the Constitution and has historically been the linchpin of resistance to tyranny. And yet, the progressives in both political parties stand ready to use the coercive power of the government to interfere with the exercise of that right by law-abiding persons because of the gross abuse of that right by some crazies in our midst.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, he was marrying the nation at its birth to the ancient principles of the natural law that have animated the Judeo-Christian tradition in the West. Those principles have operated as a break on all governments that recognize them by enunciating the concept of natural rights.

As we have been created in the image and likeness of God the Father, we are perfectly free just as He is. Thus, the natural law teaches that our freedoms are pre-political and come from our humanity and not from the government, and as our humanity is ultimately divine in origin, the government, even by majority vote, cannot morally take natural rights away from us. A natural right is an area of individual human behavior -- like thought, speech, worship, travel, self-defense, privacy, ownership and use of property, consensual personal intimacy -- immune from government interference and for the exercise of which we don’t need the government’s permission.

By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/01/10/guns-and-freedom/?intcmp=HPBucket#ixzz2HarsoomB

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

so how do you think Obama is going to come at this.....federal mandate via bypassing the congress? Or do you think he will let the states do it via the Democratic's. Im telling you this as a warning, New Jersey is like a police state.