new-york-assembly-768x395

“The SAFE Act has been a failure if only because New York lawmakers failed to realize the length to which those who want to do harm will go to do so. Three years after the SAFE Act’s passage, the Second Amendment rights of people who have done nothing wrong are indeed infringed upon while people who have no business owning a gun find ways to get one.” – SAFE Act Fails To Keep Guns From Criminals [post-journal.com editorial]

bfg-long-logo-blue-jpg-220x39

Recommended For You

29 Responses to Blue Force Quote of the Day: New York’s SAFE Act Reflects Legislators’ Naiveté. Allegedly

    • Apparently so does tyranny.
      By some reports 90% of gun owners in NY have chosen not to comply with the mandatory registration requirements. Does that mean that some million + NYers are newly minted felons?

      • “Does that mean that some million + NYers are newly minted felons?”

        They are if the ruling class defines a “felon”.

        Pro-tip: the ruling class will define “felons” based only on the whims of the ruling class. Whether or not the ruling class’ definitions of crimes overlap with We the People’s definition of crimes is strictly coincidental.

        • If they’re Felons, then take away their right to vote. Then take away NY’s ability to avoid a moving bulldozer.

  1. To them, that’s not a bug, it’s a feature…the only purpose of that law was to deny citizens their 2A rights. They know that increases crime, but couldn’t care less, since ‘safety’ wasn’t even a consideration (yeah, yeah, that’s how they always market these things when they are taking away natural rights).

  2. Yes, and water is still wet.

    Every law written since the beginning of time only restricts the actions of the law abiding.

    • No sir, they do not. They punish those who violate those laws. When talking about natural, civil, and Constitutionally protected rights, not one single law regarding those rights restricts them in any way. Other than gun control laws that is. Malum Prohibitum laws should NEVER be used to restrict rights.

      • I will further refine Gman’s comments …

        Laws are supposed to preserve human dignity and human life … an incredibly good and noble endeavor. Good and righteous laws thus:
        (1) Define what is destructive to human dignity and life.
        (2) Provide disincentives to prevent conduct which is destructive to human dignity and life.
        (3) Remove (imprison/commit) people from society who attack our human dignity and life in spite of disincentives.

        Of course the ruling class frequently perverts that noble institution to suppress anyone or anything that opposes their whims and agenda. And one of their favorite perversions: declaring that certain unalienable human rights are “illegal”.

        The real tragedy:
        (1) We the People let the ruling class pervert the law.
        (2) We the People have failed to provide disincentives to the ruling class for perverting the law.
        (3) We the People have failed to remove (imprison/commit) the ruling class who pervert the law.

        I cannot decide which is more destructive to human dignity and life: the ruling class perverting the law or We the People failing to apply the law to the ruling class.

        • Here-Here.

          “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”

          Few finer words have ever been penned. We, the People. Ne’er else in the history of mankind have the People formed a more perfect Union wherein the rights of the People come first and the power of government rests in the hands of the People. And yet, as you say, we the People have forgotten our duty. How much of the preamble is so relevant today?

          “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

  3. The first comment under the article is evident of anti logic:

    Donald Nasti: “So criminals will always find a way to get guns, thus we obviously can’t GUARANTEE they won’t get them. Therefore, no gun control laws forever.”

    Well…yea, sort of. Punish them after a crime has been committed. It is already illegal to illegally acquire or use a gun.

    • “Punish them after a[n actual] crime has been committed [with a gun]. It is already [unconstitutional] to [say that the people cannot legally] acquire or use a gun.

      There, fixed that for you.

      Repeat after me: “shall not be infringed means: SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!”

      • Agreed, should have wrote “actual crime” instead of crime, but the rest of my statement was more about making things that are already illegal, more illegal does not deter criminals.

        You’re preaching to the choir already.

      • Just a reminder. You cant believe “Shall not be infringed” is immutable, and “Ourselves and our Posterity” is not.

  4. It was disgusting how they past the Safe Act in the middle of the night with zero public input and it went into effect immediately. People had a few months to get all previously legal magazines out of state or turned into police. And they say no one is coming for your guns or doing any confiscations. They will just confiscate all ammo, magazines and reloading equipment so all you have is a club. I wonder how many people actually registered their previously legal semiauto rifles?

  5. I hope the hell people aren’t just belly-aching here about evil anti-freedom politicians! I just voted this morning! All pro-2@ politicians with good records…And one unchallenged DemoRAT anti-freedom politician who doesn’t represent me….Who didn’t get my vote….! So, if your sick and tired of this S#!t ! Then get out there and vote accordingly ! Vote for you gun rights, now before its to late!

  6. If goverment could always be “good” they must forced “states” as new york to more respect the second but nothing goes in that direction 🙁

  7. NYC will eventually be the first US city to be nuked by Jihad terrorists.
    I won’t lose any sleep over it, the Nation will be a better place as a result.

    • So… you were generally in favor of 9/11, and were glad that nearly 4,000 New Yorkers died in those attacks?

      I will self-censor before saying more.

      • His feeling are understandable. NYC under Bloomberg and De Blasio became an un-American place. He’s forgetting that NYC under Giuliani was not.

        I had friends at the WTC. They made it out safely, but I didn’t know that until the next day. For 24 hours, all I wanted to do was hear from my friends and kill every damn Arab on the face of the Earth.

        • His feelings are “understandable”?

          He’s saying he’s just fine with tens of millions of US citizens being mass murdered, and that the nation as a whole would be better off for it. And that’s “understandable” to you?

          Good God.

  8. I visited NYC twice. The museums were great. Seeing the Statue of Liberty wonderful.
    Not a very safe place in some neighborhoods. Sad.

  9. They say the SAFE Act has been a “failure.” I say, define “failure.” In the government’s eyes, you may find the law’s been a roaring success. It’s only a failure if you thought this ever had anything to do with crime.

    • But the law has everything to do with crime. It is there to ensure millions of people must live in fear and can be charged at the whim of the state. It is all about creating criminals of those who wouuld oppose them.

  10. Capitol City:
    “You hate it? It’s none of our business? Won’t help? We could do what we like in our world and leave you alone? Fine, do it out way, because f-u, that’s why.

    Any questions?”

    In case it wasn’t perfectly clear what this was about..

    After passing this “emergency” legislation via “emergency” procedures enabled by Proconsul Cuomo-the-Younger declaring the sudden invention of generally available firearms some 400 years ago to be an emergency — Hey, he’s a busy guy — every single upstate county voted a resolution opposing the SAFE act, and the state government didn’t even acknowledge the objection, let alone do anything. Of course, it was slammed through with coalitions of the usual suspects.

    This isn’t about gun ownership, gun violence, gun safety, or what’s useful or not to hunt, say in the asphalt jungles of the big city. The thing was entirely orchestrated to demonstrate who is in charge.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *