Andrew Cuomo
Previous Post
Next Post

In mid-July, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo announced the Consortium for Worker Education, a nonprofit group of 46 labor unions, would receive $18.5 million from the state to create 2,400 long-term jobs for young adults in communities distressed by gun violence. 

“We are going to hire young people, train them, and give them jobs that set them up for long-term success in their careers,” Cuomo said on July 14 in Brooklyn, at an event where he was flanked by New York City Democratic mayoral nominee Eric Adams. “These young people have entire futures ahead of them and we are going to show them there is no limit to what they can be.”

But the program has so far created about 20 jobs.

According to the state Department of Labor, CWE, which tax filings indicate has a $24 million annual budget, received $12 million to execute the program that runs through September, in addition to $6.5 million for stipend payments.

Labor Department data released to the Times Union indicates CWE has received 225 applications, plus 18 referrals. The applicants are being evaluated for skills, training needs and supportive services, the state said. An additional dozen people have started or completed short-term training. 

— Joshua Solomon in Gun violence program costs millions and has created 20 jobs so far

Previous Post
Next Post


    • Correct, it’s a slush fund to pay off the Union heads who divert money from the unions to Democrat politicians. Round and round this incestuous relationship goes.

      Most unions heads are secret millionaires from all the “kick-backs”.

      They are the bane of the nation, a relic from a bygone era. Unions instill laziness in what could be otherwise productive workers.

      Unions are inherently corrupt and need to be dismantled for the good of this nation.

      Ask me Miner about the need for Right To Work.

      • Even though you are the fake ‘minor’, you’re 10-thousand percent correct on unions…

  1. $1+ million per job. And they don’t understand that that level of inefficiency is another reason why Americans generally are worried about nationalized healthcare. You might just swap insurance company profits for government largesse, corruption, and bureaucratic inefficiency.

    • I wonder how much of that million each job actually gets? Probably pretty low level jobs, so most of this is just waste. As usual it would be better for the government to just not take and waste the money, lower taxes and let people do whatever they want with it. They can’t do worse than this.

    • Well sort of. Cuomo had hoped to stick around long enough to get his back scratched in return. I’m sure he’s looking for a way to still make it happen.

      • “Cuomo had hoped to stick around long enough to get his back scratched in return.”

        Thinking the program is backscratching….and kickbacking.

  2. … and later on, we’ll discover that eighteen of those new jobs were actually newly hired staffers to make sure that the funding continues. Typical govt operation.

  3. Another DEMONcRAT boondoggle!
    Question: How many Democrats does it take to solve a problem?
    Answer: No one knows. It hasn’t happened yet.

  4. “We are going to hire young people, train them, and give them jobs that set them up for long-term success in their careers. These young people have entire futures ahead of them and we are going to show them there is no limit to what they can be.” — former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo

    Sounds fantastic on the surface.

    A bit more introspection, experience, and wisdom tell us something entirely different.

    Why in the world would a 17 year-old endure years of education and training with the end goal of a 40 hour work week and monthly income around $4,400–when he could immediately start selling illegal narcotics on the streets and make that much money in one or two days?

    Pro-tip: seasoned politicians already know this.

    • The street level dealers actually make less than a typical McDonald’s worker. It’s kind of like MLM, where each guy kicks a percentage of his sales to the next higher level. The guys at the top are flashy to incentivize the lower levels of what they can someday achieve. Realistically, they have little chance of advancing that far and making the big money.

  5. “Those who support gun control are liars and cheats. Period.”

    Does that designation apply to POTG who think it is “common sense” that convicted felons should permanently lose their 2A right? Or POTG who think it “common sense” to deny firearm possession for mental or physical disabilities? Or POTG who think it “common sense” to deny firearm possession to people in jails or prisons?

    Any law restricting legal adults from access to firearms is “gun control”. And any exception to the Second Amendment is an infringement; the only difference between gun-grabbers and 2A defenders is how much infringement is acceptable….based on “common sense”.

    • Sam I Am,

      “… the only difference between gun-grabbers and 2A defenders is how much infringement is acceptable …”

      While obviously true, it is a simple fact of life that people do not have enough time to “deep dive” into every controversy and uncover all of the subtle “shades of gray” which exist in every controversy. That being the case, it is a necessary evil that we summarize controversies for initial consideration and discussion.

      Needless to say, when we summarize or simplify something, by definition that omits certain nuances, e.g. those “shades of gray” that we discover when we delve deeper into a controversy.

      The topic of civilian disarmament is no exception and a fairly accurate depiction of the controversy has “gun grabbers” on one side who typically want widespread disarmament and “2A defenders” on the other side who typically want widespread choice for arming themselves in a free society. And that begins to reveal the actual controversy which is a “free society” versus a “totalitarian dictatorship”.

      Note that convicted criminals in jail/prison are outside of any notion of a “free society” as well as a “totalitarian dictatorship” which is why no one ever argues that incarcerated prisoners have a right to keep and bear arms. That is why it is beyond the controversy of the 2nd Amendment.

      Notice that it took a few paragraphs to begin to explain how the question of arming convicted felons in prison relates (or fails to relate) to questions about the 2nd Amendment, our inalienable right to self-defense, and membership in any society. Thankfully, virtually everyone has a fairly accurate intuitive notion of this additional controversy and we can skip over it when discussing the 2nd Amendment.

      • The Second Amendment was not designed for the criminal element. It was designed for the citizens to protect themselves.
        Nuff said!

        • I agree wholeheartedly of course.

          The controversy over widespread choice/availability to easily arm ourselves is about free citizens in society, not about prisoners. Questions about prisoners having any right to keep and bear arms is classic “Red Herring” debate trickery.

          Nevertheless, it is a good idea to be aware of this trickery which gun-grabbers sometimes use to derail a potentially productive debate.

        • “The Second Amendment was not designed for the criminal element.”

          Can you point me to the appropriate wording in the Second Amendment?

          Not seeing any wording in the Second Amendment along the lines, “…shall not be infringed, except….”. Or, maybe it’s just a matter of “common sense”?

        • Sam I Am
          While it is not in the Second Amendment, I suggest you read the Federalist Papers. Then of course there is that ting called COMMON SENSE?
          Again, Nuff Said!

      • “That is why it is beyond the controversy of the 2nd Amendment.”

        You are making the case: “common sense” gun control is a feature of both gun grabbers, and so-called 2A defenders.

        Cannot, for the life of me, find any wording in the Second Amendment for any exception. Amendments to the constitution supersede/override the words of the original document. Thus, I put forth the case that even denial of 2A rights rendered through “due process of law” is unconstitutional.

        The Second Amendment isn’t segregated into “cases” (revolt, self-defense, hunting, sport). Thus, it seems there can be no situation where the Second Amendment can be put “beyond the controversy”. Any restriction on the Second Amendment is simply the government protecting itself from “the people”.

        My point is….we are dishonest when we complain about “gun control” being a blatant attack on a constitutionally protected natural, civil and human right, but only when instituted by the gun control mafia.

        Have you considered that the reason we get down “in the weeds” about “gun control?”. It is because we know that putting forth the reason for the amendment will scare the hell out of gun control freaks and the “undecided” unicorns (and probably most gun owners). This leaves us fighting gun grabbers on their turf, not ours.

        • Sam I Am,

          There is a simple technical error in your argument:

          The United States Constitution defines and limits the powers of the federal government (and to a lesser extent state governments) in the overall context of a righteous and functioning society.

          And a righteous and functioning society consists of three identities: government employees, citizens, and outlaws. As such some provisions of the U.S. Constitution apply to government employees, some apply to citizens, and some apply (either directly or indirectly) to outlaws.

          As it turns out, the Second Amendment only applies to citizens and does not apply to outlaws. That is why questions about outlaws (convicted criminals in prison) keeping and bearing arms are outside the controversy of the Second Amendment.

          Once again, this is somewhat oversimplified for brevity sake to convey the major idea involved. And one such simplification is using the term “citizen” in reference to everyone who is not acting in a government role nor as an outlaw.

        • I sympathize with your message. A felon who wants a gun can and will get one. Private sales, theft, straw man purchases, or just by picking up black powder weapons that don’t require a background check, ect.

          On top of that, the prison system either reforms people or it doesn’t. If it DOES reform past criminals, then why inhibit their rights indefinitely? If it DOESN’T reform them, then change is needed in the prison system. Still we’re left with criminals able to get guns if they want them.

          That said, I’d rather try to convince the average uninformed citizen about the fallacies of banning “assault weapons” or passing Red Flag Laws than try to convince the average uninformed citizen about the virtues of letting convicted rapists buy guns at a gun store.

          Perhaps this is me “fighting gun grabbers on their turf” as you put it. I can (and do) take new shooters to the range often and I like to lightly weave politics in as I teach them about firearms. But I have only so much time to devote to this or any other issue. There’s no point in trying to convince someone to metaphorically sprint who hasn’t even learned to walk.

        • “Can you point me to the appropriate wording in the Second Amendment?”

          Look to the wording ” We the People” Mr iconoclast.

          Those who have CHOSEN to commit felonies are working against everything ” We the People” stand for.

          This is of their OWN doing. They have reaped what they sowed, and have lost the trust of “We the People”. Kiss those freedoms and rights goodbye.

        • Sam I Am I suggest you read the Federalist Papers and then use some COMMON SENSE, not the common sense of the gun grabbers?

    • I don’t think it is “common sense”, but at the same time it is not a big crisis. Convicted felons might be 1% of the population, we need the other 99% carrying every day before I get real concerned about those poor felons.

      • “Convicted felons might be 1% of the population, we need the other 99% carrying every day before I get real concerned about those poor felons.”

        The issue is not about felons, but current gun owners who can be subjected to conviction of a felony. The elevation of misdemeanors to felony is merely a political exercise in government power.

        But to the point, you are endorsing exceptions to the Second Amendment, based on interpretation of “common sense”. If you like your exceptions/infringements, you can keep then. However, “shall not be infringed” mantra must be abandoned, because the Second Amendment permits no infringements.

        The constitution was not designed to protect the rights of most of the people, some of the time. In the end, the legitimacy of infringements on the Second Amendment stands on opinion, not the Constitution. Thus, unalienable rights are simply anchored on political power.

        • Felons having 2ndA rights. 🤔
          This would cause a landslide of people “on the fence” to support a total ban on the 2nd A.

          When I questioned your support of felons regaining 2nd A rights a few weeks ago, you replied you were not interested in felons rights. I was perplexed at the time.

          Now it’s very clear what you meant by your iconoclast comment.

      • Just imagine being the poor pathetic tool what comes onto TTAG, just to post hate filled lame comments to ACTUAL firearm owners, under numerous usernames. 🤔

      • “Just imagine being the poor geezer…”

        Unlike pathetic little ‘yuck’, he at least gets sex with an actual woman… 🙂

  6. Eighteen million dollars, 46 Unions and 20 jobs…sounds like v2.0 of Obama’s ” Shovel Ready Jobs” program of wealth re-distribution.

  7. Notice how every Democrat proposal to “solve” a problem involves throwing a $hit ton of money at it. Did they ever find the billion in tax payer money that DeBlasio’s wife lost?

    • Dude,

      I hinted at this ginormous problem in our Republic when I commented above about the allure of selling illegal narcotics on the streets.

      Perhaps the greatest problem facing our Republic is the overwhelming majority of citizens doggedly assuming that politicians and bureaucrats are virtually always acting in the best interests of our society.

  8. Here’s a crazy idea. Since dems are so keen to tax the wealthy corporations, how about we have those corporations use that money to invest in homegrown talent instead of sending money through the inefficient, corrupt government machine? It wouldn’t even cost the big tech companies a dime. They currently spend millions in lobbying efforts just to bring in immigrants that will work for less than Americans (the excuse is that they can’t find skilled workers). Wage suppression within the tech sector is well documented. Use that lobby money to invest in young American kids that will grow up to work for them. This solves their worker problem, it pays for their education, and it will give more Americans good paying jobs waiting for them after graduation. All of this could be accomplished without the corrupt, inefficient government wasting our money, which of course is why this will never happen. They want their cut.

    • Dude,

      While I am certainly not a senior citizen, I have, “been around the block a few times.” Throughout my entire adult life I observed countless large scale failures of government and large corporations and always ascribed those failures to incompetence and/or greed.

      What I have seen blossom in the last 18 months seems to go well beyond simple incompetence and/or greed. Sure, some politicians and large corporations implemented stupid policies and some gained from recent events. So many more actions do not have any obvious foundation of incompetence or greed. Rather, the last 18 months have convinced me that a large contingent of politicians, bureaucrats, and corporate leaders are just plain evil: they delight when society suffers and figuratively–as well as literally–burns.

      Before anyone dismisses the idea that a large contingent of politicians and corporate leaders are just plain evil and delight in suffering, there is historical precedent. You need look no further than the Holocaust to see naked evil at work with the goal of murdering millions of people. If evil was able to consume and dominate the activities of an entire nation 80 years ago, it can happen again if we refuse to acknowledge and stop it.

    • To are forum racist Dud Brain

      Who never misses a chance to attack immigrants. Hello Herr Hauptman

      Look you Moron it has been Republican Businessmen who for decades and decades have lured in illegal immigrants to be used as slave labor. It started in California in the fields to harvest fruit and other crops. Then it spread to the meat packing industry. I know I worked there at one time when 90 per cent of the people were illegal and the owner was a rabid Republican. He had numerous personnel people quite when he deliberately told them to hire illegals because they got not benefits and were paid less than Americans.

      Of course the illegals lowered your price for meat and produce at the grocery store.

      The illegals lowered your local, state and Federal income taxes because they paid into the system but could not get tax refunds and cannot retire on Soc. Security so they bolster that fund as well.

      And many later in time started their own businesses and hired people including citizens giving them jobs and wealth.

      Dud Brain your are one low life piece of racist trash.

      • At the federal, state, and local levels, taxpayers shell out approximately $134.9 billion to cover the costs incurred by the presence of more than 12.5 million illegal aliens and about 4.2 million citizen children of illegal aliens. That amounts to a tax burden of approximately $8,075 per illegal alien family member and a total of almost $116 Billion.

        And since the number of illegals is actually more than double 12.5 million, the true cost is at least double $116 billion or closer to a quarter Trillion dollars in a single year.

        Additionally this study is now 4 years old and does not account for the invasion of over 1.7 million to 2.7 million illegal invaders in 2021 alone.

        • Now we have fake Miner 40er chiming in. The real Miner would never have quoted a far right propaganda web site. Now let me tear it apart.

          quote —————-In 2017, the total cost of illegal immigration for the United States – at the federal, state, and local levels – was approximately $116 billion.———–quote

          Of course no documentation only a wild claim

          quote—————–FAIR arrived at this number by subtracting the tax revenue paid by illegal aliens – about $19 billion – from the total economic impact of illegal migration, $134.9 billion.—————quote

          Again pure racist bullshit. What economic impact???? Immigrants come here to work and work they indeed do. Every illegal I have known worked their asses of some 7 days a week and its pure bullshit they do not pay taxes.

          quote————-In 2013, the estimated total cost of illegal migration was approximately $113 billion. So, in under four years, the cost has risen nearly $3 billion.————-quote

          Again pure racist bullshit. No documentation, no surveys cited, no examples given.

          quote—————–Evidence shows that the tax payments made by illegal aliens fail to cover the costs of the many services they consume.————quote

          Again pure racist bullshit, and no documentation only accusations

          quote—————–A large percentage of illegal aliens who work in the underground economy frequently avoid paying any income tax at all.—————quote

          Again cite documentations. They do not , I wonder why?

          quote————-Many illegal aliens actually receive a net cash profit through refundable tax credit programs.————quote

          Now this is really over the top and proves this web site is no more credible than the racist right wing propaganda entertainment show Fox News. Illegal Immigrants are not eligible for any tax credit programs, cannot get tax refunds, cannot get social security benefits.

          Sorry fake Miner why don’t you be a man and post under your own name. The real Miner would never stoop to such a level or use such a ridiculous far right media source.

        • “Of course no documentation only a wild claim”
          “Again cite documentations. They do not , I wonder why?”

          Why? Well stop wondering. It is because your reading comprehension is at a second (maybe first) degree level.

          Really sorry you failed basic reading and don’t understand how to read the full report that includes ….. 134 footnotes!

          But why would you? As a mentally unbalanced leftist (ask me Miner49er all about it) you can simply scream and attempt to project your racism upon others. Again, point of fact, you are the racist.

          Here is the page on their website you either ignored, or because of your current reading comprehension level could not locate.

          It has 134 endnotes you can click at (but will be unlikely to understand), like this one; Joel Gherke, “Report: U.S. Spent $1.87 Billion to Incarcerate Illegal-Immigrant Criminals in 2014,”
          National Review, July 28, 2015

          Happy reading….. your “tear it apart” skills is nonexistent… and seek some professional help ASAP!

      • Advocating for less government waste and investing in the future of young Americans (of any race) makes me a racist and is an attack on immigrants. Yeah okay buddy. LOL

      • “…why don’t you be a man and post under your own name.”

        So “dacian” with a small “d” is your real name?

      • Dacian, Since when is wanting and EXPECTING people to OBEY he laws of this country “racist”? And they are NOT “immigrants.” They are illegal aliens.

  9. “We are going to hire young people, train them, and give them jobs that set them up for long-term success in their careers, … These young people have entire futures ahead of them and we are going to show them there is no limit to what they can be.”

    Wow! A whole 20 more people mopping floors and only at the cost of $18 million. What a bargain.

  10. Reading these comments is like listening to cat lady rants… you know, the typical college educated idiot…
    G d mo rons….. the whole lot of you….. probably a bunch of fat keyboard warriors….
    And then the moderators…. also fat keyboard warriors… lol…. get a life…. you’re NOWHERE near as smart as you thunk you are… life’s losers for sure…

    • /begin_sarcasm

      Oh no!

      Some anonymous person said I am a fat keyboard warrior idiot without a life who sounds like a “cat lady”! I am devastated that I failed to secure that anonymous person’s compliments and affirmation!

      I suppose I just have to silence myself and please that anonymous person who insulted me.


      How miserable does someone have to be to anonymously insult people like that?

      • “I suppose I just have to silence myself and please that anonymous person who insulted me.”

        No, you go to court and get a judgement that if you upset anyone, by word or deed, you are an oppressor and should be cancelled from all social media. That’ll learn ya’, durn ya’.

      • Hurling insults instead of engaging in debate…It’s all left wingers are capable of outside of their protective bubble. I’d be ashamed to be that pathetic. He/she/it probably is as well which is why their regular name wasn’t used.

        • You can tell when the little commissar is losing and argument or getting frustrated. He starts using personal attacks and insults.

  11. @uncommon_sense
    “Questions about prisoners having any right to keep and bear arms is classic “Red Herring” debate trickery.”

    Nope. It is about intellectual honesty, and self-examination as to our principles. Underlying everything, every contention over RTKBA, is the notion that POTG hold the moral and legal high ground because we promote less infringement than the gun grabbers. We believe ourselves righteous because we are not as bad on infringements as are the gun control mafia.

    Any talk of the Second Amendment in terms of self-defense is a red herring, because we are fearful of putting forth the the truth of the Second Amendment.

  12. @uncommon_sense
    “As it turns out, the Second Amendment does not apply to outlaws. ”

    Citation, please. (common practice/common sense is an opinion, not law)

    • depends on the outlaw and the crime. The “Second Amendment does not apply to outlaws” is an artificial constitutional rights limitation set in law passed by Congress ’cause SCOTUS allows some restrictions to be set. Thus, “Second Amendment does not apply to outlaws” of certain types.

      For citation look at just about any case where a convicted felon tried to fight that. However, some convicted felons can get their gun rights back but again it depends on the crime they were convicted for, there are attorneys which specialize in that.

      I know one guy who as a kid fell in with the wrong crowd. One day they stole a bunch of gasoline and he was along for the ride but didn’t actually participate. He got arrested and convicted of Grand Larceny at age 17. He cleaned up his act, went into the military, served 30 years and retired. He petitioned the court for his gun rights back, did it all himself and represented himself, and based upon his honorable military service got them back. He owns and runs a gun store now.

      • .40 cal Booger,

        See my comment below why the Second Amendment does not apply to “outlaws” (which we might better describe as imprisoned criminals.) It has nothing to do with any laws which Congress recently passed or federal court decisions.

        With respect to convicted criminals released on parole:
        They have not yet completed their “penance/restitution” and therefore are not yet a member of, “the People.” Thus the Second Amendment does not apply to them.

        With respect to convicted criminals after their release and completing parole:
        I would argue that they have completed their “penance/restitution” and are therefore a member of, “the People,” once again. Thus they should have full Second Amendment rights like everyone else. Nevertheless, Congress and the Courts see it differently and insist on continuing to infringe on an ex-convict’s Second Amendment rights.

      • Thanx for the response.

        Starting from the text of the Second, there is no language regarding restrictions on gun ownership/possession. Why? Because the Second Amendment is the line in the sand telling government the people are the source of power, not government. The wording of the Second brooks no exceptions.

        The point of my observations is that “shall not be infringed” means what it says, or it doesn’t. Anyone who wants to hoist the banner of “shall not be infringed”, yet has their own list of acceptable exceptions is being disingenuous. Thus, the discussion always breaks down into two parties with a similar principle arguing over just how much “infringement” is acceptable.

        But, of course, there is the pesky 14th Amendment. So, given that the Second Amendment overrides any possible attempt by government to prevent the people from bearing arms, does the 14th override the Second, in that the 14th asserts that property cannot be taken from the people except as a result of “due process of law”? Therefore, is the Second Amendment no longer absolute, and subject to acts of government intended to protect government from the people?

        Just as the gun grabbers want to put restrictions/exceptions on gun ownership, so do all too many gun owners….each side with a list of interpretations to justify their exceptions.

        Bottom line? If a gun owner believes any restrictions at all can be explained as “common sense”, such people forfeit the legitimacy of the claim “shall not be infringed”. Natural, human and civil rights do not depend on case law.

    • Sam I Am,

      The United States Constitution starts with the words, “We the People …”. Similarly, the Second Amendment includes the words, “… the right of the People …”

      I cannot overstate the importance of the following:

      What most readers casually gloss over–“the People”–is a very specific term of art which has gigantic legal implications. At the risk of oversimplification, “the People,” refers to the body politic who comprise our nation for the purpose of “forming a more perfect union” as simply stated in the U.S. Constitution. As you can easily imagine, convicted criminals by definition detract from, “a more perfect union,” and thus have removed themselves from the body politic which pursues, “a more perfect union.” In other words convicted criminals are not members of, “the People.” Therefore, the Second Amendment does not apply to them.

      This is not “common practice” per-se. Rather, it is part of the most basic and integral bedrock principles of our states and union. And it forms the rational and righteous basis for imprisonment and suspension of rights while imprisoned.

      • Spot on.
        Outlaws/felons are working AGAINST “The People”.
        Outlaws/felons, sorry, not sorry that you CHOSE to forfeit your 2nd A rights.

        SIA keeps flopping out that same red herring.

  13. This forum never misses a chance to denigrate Unions.

    The article admits it was only mid-July when the program was started. That is only 3 1/2 months. It has probably not even ironed out all the bugs in it yet.

    Remember it was Unions who gave us:

    The 40 hour work week

    Retirement benefits

    Holidays off

    Vacation time

    Safer working conditions

    Protection for women from sexual harassment on the job

    A higher livable wage

    Protection from abusive supervisors

    Show me a non-union shop and I will show you low wages, abusive supervisors, and unsafe work environment, no holidays off, no paid for vacation time, no retirement, and no hospitalization benefits. In short the Capitalvanians will treat you as a worker troglodyte slave regarded as sub-human and expendable, just a modern day Serf.

    • Nobody cares.

      It’s the same as every other work program created by government. The jobs come and the jobs go. They just magically disappear when the publicity stops. Unions rip off employees. For the past 2 years my brother has been hearing his union is waiting for negotiations. Meanwhile, non union jobs getting pay increases and you can negotiate your own wages if you assert yourself enough and are tactful about it. Only idiots stay at union jobs. I’ve seen so many people verbally say they don’t want to “rock the boat” and they should be journeyman wage. It’s their own fualt. You get what you ask for.

    • Unions were beneficial to the workers in the early days but once infiltrated by political influence and organized crime they became a money laundering service and rent a crowd.

      When public sector unions strike for public sympathy, they usually lose what sympathy they had. Notably transport unions.

      • Unions or guilds were for the traveling experienced worker(journeyman) and their apprentices. In the heavy construction trades, bridge builders, boilermakers, high iron steel workers and it the movie industry, the union journeymen makes the movie/series safe. The stunt men, the camera shots form dangerous angles, the handling of firearms and controlling of explosions, even the workers that make sure the crew has healthy room and board.
        Just take a look at the movies made in Monument Valley by John Ford in the 30s. Setting up a townful of people for a 30 day shoot took a lot and the professionals made it work(or else).
        These fly by night movie makers(even though there are lodgings to be had in most locations) cut corners and are accidents and broken promises to the crew waiting to happen. Unions were made for a reason. Yes, organized crime(or politics, but I repeat myself) have taken advantage of choke points, but unions are still the best protection for professional workers.

  14. @Tim in Texas
    “There’s no point in trying to convince someone to metaphorically sprint who hasn’t even learned to walk.”


    The intention of my observations is to challenge principles of gun owners, by pointing out that if gun owners accept the idea that there definitely are honest reasons to infringe on the Second Amendment, we cannot cling to “shall not be infringed” as some sort of righteous defense against infringements we don’t like.

  15. @James Campbell
    “Those who have CHOSEN to commit felonies are working against everything ” We the People” stand for. ”

    Then one must of necessity provide the words in the Constitution that declare criminals are not members of “We, the people”, and thus have no rights at all.

    The Dims, leftists, statists, are also “working against everything ‘We the People’ stand for.” I’d say you make a pretty good argument for eliminating political opponents.

    The root of your line of thought is simply standing on stilts of interpretation/opinion, not adherence to the Constitution. Of course, one of the difficulties in discussing meanings and intentions of the framers is that the 14th Amendment inverted the original intention of the States controlling government.

    Nonetheless, any exception claimed against the Second Amendment boils down to opinion of which infringements are acceptable, and to whom. All the arguments of the gun grabbers are based on biased opinions (raised to the level of “law”) and interpretation of 27 easily understood words. It is the same for all too many gun owners trying to justify their favored exceptions.

  16. @James Campbell
    “Felons having 2ndA rights. 🤔
    This would cause a landslide of people “on the fence” to support a total ban on the 2nd A.”

    Yes, self-governance is very messy. And it seems that the only consistent in the exercise is inconsistency.

    As a person who believes the Second Amendment is absolute, I also recognize that there are people who shouldn’t be allowed in the same county where firearms are present; a classic conundrum. The reality is that any infringement/restriction of the Second Amendment poses the question, “how much infringement is too much?”. As a result, I cannot judiciously establish “the bright red line.” This places a restriction on me in that I cannot bang the drum and shout, “shall not be infringed”. It is the height of intellectual dishonesty to declare “shall not be infringed…except the infringements I like”.

    • Shall not be infringed applies to “We the People”. Those working toward the “more perfect union”
      This does not include outlaws and felons.

      • “This does not include outlaws and felons.”

        Still not seeing any stratification in the Second Amendment that supports any notion than felons/prisoners are not part of “We the people”. And once the argument devolves to exceptions, we are dealing with opinion, not the Constitution.

        The entire point is that “shall not be infringed” has no effective meaning, if even a single fringement (restriction) is permitted.

        Is it not curious that “shall not be infringed” is never the question before the court? All gun control starts with the premise that infringements are, and have always been, permitted; that only the degree (extent of burden) of acceptable infringement is put before the judiciary?

        “Shall Not Be Infringed” is merely an incantation, a superstition used in vain hope of warding off the evil spirits. Time we dropped that convention. Infringements are enshrined in federal and state law. The standing laws of gun control cannot be defeated by appealing to a slogan.

        • Sam I Am, Then I strongly suggest that you OPEN YOUR EYES and your mind. The Constitution begins with the words, “WE THE PEOPLE”, does it not? The people is meant to be the law abiding citizens of this country. The Constitution was written to establish a law by which the government, Federal and states included. When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, do you honestly think that that in “WE THE PEOPLE”, they were including criminals and felons?
          “Shall not be infringed” refers to the body of citizens who do abide by the law and the Constitution. To think or consider otherwise defies common sense.

  17. @Walter E Beverly III
    “Sam I Am, Then I strongly suggest that you OPEN YOUR EYES and your mind. ”

    Interesting how many people default to interpretation of the Second Amendment, while simultaneously claiming 2A “shall not be infringed” is simple to understand; means what is says.

    BTW, felons and prisoners still have unalienable rights, one being right to life.

    Nonetheless, if people want to equivocate on whether or not 2A is absolute, fine. Be honest: some infringements are valid, and the breadth and depth of those infringements are based on interpretation (opinion), and “shall not be infringed” is meaningless, but held out as some sort of righteousness that is superior to the righteousness of those who also believe 2A is not absolute…and can be curtailed to an idea of what is “common sense”.

    The Second Amendment cannot be “absolute, but….”

    • Sam I Am, I understand fully what “shall not be infringed” means. Do you realize that the Constitution was written to GOVERN this country. It was geared as I pointed out above to LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.
      Pray tell, almighty great Sage, how does keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals, depriving them of “the right to life”? There is NO EQUIVICATING here. It is hardly meaningless as the Constitution is GEARED to protect the law abiding citizens, not those who would deprive us of our basic rights to our own property and life.

      • “Sam I Am, I understand fully what “shall not be infringed” means.”

        Thinking that if one must ad an explanation, the Second Amendment is subject to all sorts of modification, without the trouble of ratifying a clarifying constitutional amendment. One must presume the framers were competent in their use of language, and, if clarification as to meaning were considered necessary, such would have been provided in the ratified amendment.

        “It was geared as I pointed out above to LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.”

        I would like a reference to that. Seriously. The only thing I am aware of coming close to your statement is when John Adams (after the Constitution was ratified) remarked to an acquaintance, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

        As regards to just who is a member of “we the people”….
        “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Prisoners are persons, part of “the people”.

        OBTW, our prison system(s) are part of forming a more perfect union (rehabilitating a member of “the people”. Unlike in other countries, America does not consider prisoners non-person (or, unperson).

        Once you walk away from the principle of “absolute” meaning to words, then follows the contest of acceptable restrictions (infringements). And what determines the acceptable infringements? The party with the majority of votes.

        • Sam I Am, WRONG. The 2nd Amendment is to protect LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, not criminals. You see criminals have this tendency to want to deprive you and I of our hard earned property and sometimes out lives.
          “We The People” refers to those law abiding citizens that you seem to not care about. They are NOT “prisoners”. They are criminals who have been committed to serve prison time as INMATES. People, yes; entitled to life, yes, but not liberty and not their pursuit of happiness. No prison EVER rehabilitated any one. Never has; never will. If a convict ever rehabilitates, he will do it himself. In the prison system, programs are offered to assist the convict. But he has to do the rehabbing. I do not under any circumstances accept your nonsensical opinion on convicts and felons being allowed to have firearms.
          Have a good day.

  18. “The 2nd Amendment is to protect LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, not criminals.”

    No, it isn’t. The Second Amendment is a harsh warning against a government moved to tyranny. Other uses of firearms were and are secondary considerations at the national level.

    At the writing of the BOR, the framers were not concerning themselves with self-defense, hunting or sporting (the then States regulated firearms within their borders). Very little in the Constitution, or BOR regulated daily activities of the individual States (“the people). The founders were consumed with the mechanisms of preventing the central government from turning the States into states; mere precincts of the national government. In 1868, the inversion of supremacy was initiated.

    “The 2nd Amendment is to protect LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, not criminals.”

    You can rest assured that comes the revolution (which won’t), those fighting tyrannical government will enlist whatever firepower can be put on the line, and deal with criminals as necessary.

    Definition of prisoner

    1 : a person deprived of liberty and kept under involuntary restraint, confinement, or custody especially : one on trial or in prison
    2 : someone restrained as if in prison

    On a related note…the goal of rehabilitating criminals is an honorable intention (hope?), but, as you wrote, completely ineffective as a system.

    • Sam Am I, You really are thick. For the second time, they are not “prisoners”. Your “definition” is what you got form a dictionary. Whoopie! That definition is from an apparently left leaning academic.
      Tell me when you face a criminal with a gun pointed at your head, how it’s a “national issue”. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is for the protection of the “WE THE PEOPLE”. Not for your criminal friends.
      As to your contention that the 2nd was not written with “self defense” in mine, you might want to read the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers. One of the specific problem in getting ratification was that the states (many who were hesitant to ratify) did not see the protections that was promised when the Constitutional Convention was convened.
      It has been the ideal of the “do-gooders” to try to rehabilitate convicts. It started with the Auburn System which was instituted at Auburn Correctional Facility in Auburn, NY. That system did not work any more than the one that the “reformers (read idiots who don’t understand human nature)”. The effort to “rehabilitate” is not “completely ineffective.” It’s impossible as the idiots who propagate this nonsense don’t and can’t admit that it is up to the individual and their own personal initiative. It’s just like the welfare system. They think that by supporting individuals that, that will motivate them to get off welfare.

      • “For the second time, they are not “prisoners”. Your “definition” is what you got form a dictionary. Whoopie! That definition is from an apparently left leaning academic.

        You recommend re-reading the Federalist Papers, but don’t recognize that the Merriam-Webster dictionary has been a classic, well-respected dictionary for at least 100yrs? Which dictionary do you recognize as a “gold standard”?

        “One of the specific problem in getting ratification was that the states (many who were hesitant to ratify) did not see the protections that was promised when the Constitutional Convention was convened.”

        Precisely. The Federalists approached the Constitution as non-permissive. The Anti-Federalist insisted that eventually government would conclude that whatever was that authority not specifically withheld authorized the government to act.

        “Tell me when you face a criminal with a gun pointed at your head, how it’s a “national issue”. ”

        Irrelevant. The Constitution was a document to control, not the States, but the national government. The then States already had constitutions. The States met to confer limited power on a national government. The Articles of Confederation withheld too much power, and a new covenant/compact was needed that granted still limited, but more power for a national government. At the time, there was no intention for force the States to conform their constitutions to essentially copy the national constitution. Criminal activity was under the authority of State governments. I know it is very difficult to not view 1787 as a completely different political context. In 1787, the national government was sovereign only in those matters where authority to act was delegated by the States. We can’t lay down the political power structure after 1868 atop the times of the founding.

        Always willing to learn: please point me to statements in the Federalist Papers where the intention of the Second Amendment was to permit the citizens of individual States to possess firearms for self-defense?

        The very words of the Second Amendment explain its intent; via militia, the States would not be reduced to servant status, dependent upon the grace of the national government to not exceed its delegated powers.

        This has been an interesting conversation, but to the original point: “shall not be infringed” does not allude to “shall not” being defined to mean, “except as inferred, or interpreted”. “Shall not” is a statement of exclusion, not inclusion. It is not a nuanced phrase, and is not a synonym for “May not”. “Shall not is absolute, or it is not. If not, the only alternative definition is “interpretive”; subject to opinion/political power.

        I accept the Second Amendment to be absolute, while recognizing that the vast majority of society cannot mentally, physically and philosophically deal with absolutes successfully.

        • Sam I Am You are 100% that I do not accept Merriam-Webster’s definition of “prisoner”. You see there is a big difference. A prisoner is a person who is captured in war. An Inmate is a person who put himself in prison by committing a crime is convicted and sentenced. A kind of “fine line of distinction.”
          For the (I don’t know what # time) “shall not be infringed refers to “WE THE PEOPLE.” Not convicts. If you read the Constitution it starts out with “WE THE PEOPLE” meaning citizens. A convicted felon is a person whose rights have been stripped from him. You repeating the same tired argument is not cutting it. The very words of the 2nd Amendment, is dependent on those very first words. When reading the Constitution, you must take into account the INTENT of the Founding Fathers. Apparently you do not. Again, read my posts above and try to digest their meaning. I doubt it will help, but I do live in Hope, even if it is a high rent district.
          If you want to arm felons, you are not one of WE THE PEOPLE.

  19. @Walter E Beverly III
    “Sam I Am You are 100% that I do not accept Merriam-Webster’s definition of “prisoner”. ”

    Which dictionary do you find authoritative?

    • Sm I Am. READ ABOVE. Apparently, you are just looking for a fight. I described in great detain the difference between a “prisoner” and a convict/inmate. Having worked in NYS DOCCS for 25 yrs as a Correction Sergeant. I do believe that I know the difference better than you and your Merriam-Webster’s “dictionary.”

  20. “I do believe that I know the difference better than you and your Merriam-Webster’s “dictionary.”.

    Yes, you stated that well. My question remains, “Which dictionary do you find to be authoritative?”

  21. “Asked and answered.”

    Then an apology is due, as it seems I overlooked that reply. Would you mind re-sending? It will be informative to compare your dictionary choice with a number of others.


  22. Sam Am I. Scroll up. Are you incapable of that? I wouldn’t be surprised if you were. You certainly aren’t the brightest light on the tree.

  23. “Sam Am I. Scroll up. Are you incapable of that? I wouldn’t be surprised if you were. You certainly aren’t the brightest light on the tree.”

    Ok, you accomplished my mission.

  24. Sam I Am, and all it took was for you to follow directions. See, you can learn something. I guess maybe you are not as stupid as you look.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here