While RF was spreading the cheer about New York Democrats wanting to revise the NY SAFE Act, it looks like Governor Cuomo might not be on board. The news program Capital Tonight is reporting that the Gov says he will not accept any change to the magazine capacity limit. From the program’s blog . . .
Gov. Andrew Cuomo was quick to hold his first question-and-answer session since Thursday with reporters after Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver confirmed that alterations to the state’s new gun control law had crept into the budget negotiations.
Cuomo, who insisted he would not accept a change in the limits on high-capacity magazine, opened the door to the budget not be completed by the end of this week.
Honestly, I’d be pretty happy if Cuomo strong-armed New York Democrats into keeping the SAFE Act as-is. The man has his eyes on the presidency, and something tells me that he’ll be wanting to use the SAFE Act to sell his bona fides to New York and California voters. So keeping the act in place is high on his list of priorities. Which means that legal challenges like the Tresmond case can run their course and completely and totally bitchslap the bill out of existence.
In short, this thing isn’t over. Not even close.
Unnecessary use of force? I think he was justified; except for drawing his firearm. I would, however, give him a little room to bend the law in a sketchy ghetto situation like that. Being physical and using force is the only thing hood thugs seem to understand. I pray for his safety.
He’s a useless putz.
I come here because you guys are the up to date and the most pro gun site I visit. To see this headline i feel a bit let down by you guys. If you follow the video link you will see multiple altercation with the same guy in the video above, also this guy has told this a hole to leave and not come back to the establishment multiple times and he continues to defy him, Its the same as someone coming into your place of work on a daily basis and assaulting you in a place were you have the right to be add to that that his boys were getting ready to jump him. as a potential juror I see the threat of great bodily harm and or death present you don’t know what this guys might or might not be capable of doing or what weapons they might be carrying.
Just look at it as if it was a cop in this situation and the same guys were not following his orders, how is it any different. how does a cop have more authority to remove the person that has been known to assault him multiple times previously.
Its about time people take some personal action and step up to the call cause if we don’t it might be you someone does not come to help when there same animal are assaulting you. (I know most of us here practice our second amendment right and would be ready to face a threat like this but keep in mind the term the sheepdog and the sheep. would you let the sheep be slaughter?
He is a fascist PIG. But its fun to see Dems slap each other and do some infighting.
It might be a nice very-limited-application-range-pop-gun at $1500. Nothing more.
Nobody is going to hump this 22# lard-pig into a “tactical” scenario, unless they’re a complete idiot.
$6500 buys me Mark Serbu’s semi-auto .50 BMG rifle that is apparently just as accurate. And carries a bit more punch.
Let’s be honest. This old pathetic fart is on the cutting edge of 1972 and needs to retire to some loser hick Texas town where he can spin tall tales of the greatness he never was. He is nothing and no one if you actually know what is out there.
This moron doesn’t even know how to figure out why his barrels are breaking. I wouldn’t trust him for the time of day.
Gotta love that coast-dweller myopia. I can’t wait to see his finger-wagging, paternalistic ass get booted out in the primaries.
Well, since Cuomo says the round count will not change it will be changed very soon.
I’m actually really glad that he won’t change it. We need the law to be as stupid as possible, which makes it easier to strike down as unconstitutional in the courts, setting a precedent for more court cases to take back the occupied zones of California, New Jersey, Conneticut, etc.
Knowing the general emotional and mental immaturity of progressives, he’s just being a spoiled child who couldn’t get his way.
“the madman might have acquired a firearm from another source. That said, I’m not a grieving parent who’s spent an eternity playing woulda coulda shoulda. ”
That’s one of the funniest things you’ve ever written, and you’ve written some doozies before. The only way to improve on it would have been to say “the madman couda acquired a firearm from another source.”
good, he should stick to his guns. The SAF challenged the $340 NYC handgun fee a while ago and thats wending its way through courts. Lets the dismantlement begin.
The AC vent at my range sounds like a waterfall in the background when I have my noise amplifying muffs turned up.
Diane your sounding awfully depressed my dear, don’t go doing something rash, like say… throwing yourself off the Golden Gate Bridge, cause you know we would miss ya.
Your comment about the author and other gun rights advocates wanting a strong public outcry is only the tip of the iceberg. There is erosion of other constitutional rights which is very frightening because it’s like dominoes, start one falling and the rest may fall right behind it and so may our constitutional rights. In certain areas of the country you or I could be stopped and be asked for our ‘papers’, checking to see if we are US citizens. Or a group of police show up at your door, with bullet proof vests and drawn weapons and they ask ‘kindly’ if they may come in and search your house, because of course, you have nothing to hide. The worst of that is they will not tell you what your rights are until after they have intimidated their way into your house.
You say the all of the worries about taking away constitutional rights, starting with the second amendment right, is ‘baloney’. Think back on the oppression that the states felt from England that led to the American Revolution. The founding fathers used what they had learned from England’s way of trying to control the upstart colonies and translated that knowledge into the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. They had firsthand knowledge of how things had been and they wanted better for their children.
So I would prefer to keep the Constitution and the Amendments as strong as possible to keep the unthinkable from ever happening again.
“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Benjamin Franklin
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect them selves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson
And on me wanting to own a gun, it is partly principle and partly concern as to where the United States and the world are heading.
How can countries that gives up (or has taken away) guaranteed constitutional rights stay strong and survive?
These rights and constitutional guarantees are what have helped make this country as strong as it is in the world.
The UK is talking about putting controls on their media because of scandals.
Cyprus is on the verge of confiscating money from bank accounts to cover their debts.
Putin sounds like he’s trying to rebuild the old USSR.
On your statement:
“It’s not that the government IS trying to confiscate our guns; it’s that SOMEDAY, the government COULD”
If the government wanted to confiscate all of the guns, they literally could not right now, but if a ‘universal background check’ happens, which then allows the government to know who has what guns and where they are located, it leaves it open for them at a later date to say that certain guns are now illegal and show up at your door and take them away from you. Canada started the same kind of background checks 20 years ago and I saw a Canadian newscast where the anchor was warning US citizens that if we follow suit on the universal background checks, the government will, at some point, start confiscating guns.
Your point about reducing the number of ‘bombs/chemical weapons’ only works if all sides disarm and it’s able to be documented and all sides never try and make new weapons without the other concerned parties finding out about the new weapons.
This goes back to my point about all of the recent and upcoming laws, they target law abiding citizens and do absolutely nothing to target the criminals with guns. Plus, in the case of some (maybe a lot) of the proposed or recently signed laws, the US citizens do not want the laws as passed/proposed.
I live in MD where at a legislative hearing where citizens were allowed to speak for/against, there were 32 for and over 1300 speaking against the proposed law.
So much for a government by, for and of the people.
There have been discussions on helping mentally ill people for a long time with limited action and I feel that’s where we need to start.
Followed by enforcing the gun laws currently on the books.
And last but definitely not least, we need to enact laws that specifically target criminals how have and use guns.
I kind of liked the movie “Escape from New York”, throw all the bad criminals, including for violent gun use, into a big prison together and let them survive with each other in whatever way they can.
In closing, I will tell you that my thoughts may have been a little closer to your thoughts before I started reading more and seeing more erosion of our rights. Once started down the slippery slope of giving up rights, it’s extremely hard to stop and we, as a country, has
definitely started down that slope and I’m concerned as to when and where we will finally stop.
As someone from GA, I have seen safer places than this “mall” in the Middle East. That’s not a joke.
The place is overrun with gang activity, drug dealing, prostitution and other illegal activity.
This guy is trying to clean it up.
APD’s response time to something like this would be over 20 minutes to this area of town, easily.
I would be happy if a firearm had a similar “safety” that only allowed it to be used in proximity to its owner. Nothing is perfect but we got to start somewhere. These people are aware that the GPS satellite system is on borrowed time and needs upgrading right?
Just go through back issues of the NRA magazine, First Freedom, and look for the Armed Citizen columns. That’ll put plenty of DGUs on the map.
This is … brilliant. It will be next to impossible to unscrew it out of the grip retention screw hole, and screw in a new grip and screw. Or maybe it will be really simple to remove. I’d stick my removed gps in a flower basket, send it to DiFi, and report the gun stolen. Idiots.
This was all Kabuki. Everything scripted including her false shock & surprise.
It’s funny how all the critics sound like DiFi and Chuck the Schmuck. Ask yourself how you would act if some undesirable came on to your property.
Nick, I want to mitigate your feeling about the poor showing a little with this comment: I loved that video. I’ve watched a decent number of 3-gun videos, and this ranks right at the top. The edited cuts from first to third person and back were awesome, and really made me feel like I was there and understood exactly what you were seeing and trying to do. I hope every video you post of this adventure looks that good, and even better as your performance inevitably improves.
No reason whatsoever.
We should be able to own SBRs, SBSs, AOWs, SMGs, true “assault rifles” or whatever else we want to have.
I fully support repealing the NFA and related amendments. I just know it’ll never happen unfortunately
Good question. Don’t know.
I think it is reasonable to expect a sport or defensive shooter to be aware of his target and what is beyond and keep an accounting of where his bullets are going.
This remains easy with semi-auto but the difficulty of the task bifurcates when you get into FA. The expectation of knowing your target and what is beyond and accounting for your bullets presumes you are in friendly territory.
At war (traditionally) you know in advance your targets are badguys and what is beyond are more badguys. So essentially I think FA makes sense when you are in an environment which is hostile. Since home is not such an environment I don’t think police should ever be issued FA and am comfortable with regular people owning them given some degree of regulation, but the current NFA rules and artificially imposed scarcity of FA items are too much of it.
The only problem with having an fully automatic is the cost.
I wish the founders were alive today to see what the government has become, Washington would probably run Obama through with his sword for the sh*t he and the liberals are causing.
This is just hypothetical. What if we want to balance 2nd Amendment concerns with public safety concerns.
The people, you, me, and Bob (not Harold, because we locked him up in jail), need the capability to keep our government in check and defend against tyranny.
But at the same time, we don’t want people walking around the perimeter of the airport with legally owned and effective ground to passenger plane handheld rocket launchers (assuming they exist). How would we prevent a terrorist from legally getting into position to take out a plane? Do we have to wait until the trigger is pulled?
Or, maybe, to keep the government in check, we do need those rocket launchers. Maybe we accept the risk of a nutjob killing 250 people. But maybe we don’t let people own a backpack nuclear bomb (if such a thing exists). Maybe we do let them own hand grenades.
Remember, this is hypothetical, so stop yelling at me. My point is, hypothetically, it would be possible to draw some sort of rational line (pro-gunners would have to draw it, because anti-gunners are not rational) between the ability of the people to check the government, and the ability of the people through the police to keep the nutjob mass murderer damages to a reasonable limit.
Who defines “reasonable limits”? I don’t know. If the Supreme Court, then we are in trouble as soon as one more anti-gun judge gets power.
Some attempts at “reasonable” are perhaps Scalia basically saying arms a soldier can carry. We could potentially think about the ability of the tool (the gun, rocket launcher, etc) to target 1 bad person at a time. That’s a hypothetical definition. Can you limit that tool to just destroying the width of a bad guy? Pass-through should ok (keep it out of the discussion for now). Toss a hand grenade. Opps, the destructive area is a bit wide, thus illegal. The rocket launcher will need a non-exploding warhead, but then will be legal. Machine gun? Good to go. Shotgun? Well, we’d have to pick a distance for the legal test. Keep all pellets within an 18″ diameter circle at 10 yards? Ok, that’s legal.
Otherwise, if there were no line, and no test, and grenades were legal, and were readily available, and became affordable, that would seem extremely dangerous for public safety. Next you’ll tell me grenades are already legal. If we can buy them at Wal-mart, I don’t think we’d like what the bad guys would do with them. So if already legal, then maybe we’d want some sort of restrictions on grenades. But I’d hate to introduce restrictions. I’d rather just keep the violent criminals locked up. Harold can’t buy a gun in jail, so no background checks needed.
But machine guns legal? Yes. As long as they can keep all shots within 18″ at 10 yards when tested.
Libtards. Who the hell cares about gang banging liberals and people who ‘off’ themselves?
Liberalism is a mental disorder.
I need more guns and stuff.
Chicago is ‘getting a handle on crime?’ Bullsh!t. While the rest of the country has seen violent crime and homicide drop off a cliff in the last 20 years, Chicago is singlehandedly scaling new heights of mayhem and murder.
As many others have noted, making guns illegal (in Chicago, Illinois, and everywhere) will only succeed in making guns illegal. It won’t succeed in making Chicago not be Chicago, historically among the most corrupt and violent of all North American cities.