1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

NY Gov Cuomo Says "Confiscation Could Be An Option"

Discussion in 'Legal' started by vtail, Dec 21, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. vtail

    vtail Well-Known Member


    New York governor Andrew Cuomo says the state of New York is serious about gun confiscation. The Democrat and former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development told an Albany radio station he plans to propose a package of draconian legislation during his Sate of the State address next month.

    “I don’t think legitimate sportsmen are going to say, ‘I need an assault weapon to go hunting,’” Cuomo said, according to the New York Times. “There is a balance here — I understand the rights of gun owners; I understand the rights of hunters.”

    Cuomo indicated the state will likely force some kind of permit process on owners of semi-automatic “assault weapons.” In addition to generating revenue and expanding the size and reach of government, the effort will allow the state to confiscate the weapons of citizens who do not comply.

    “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it,” the governor said.

    Cuomo’s confiscation scheme follows remarks by liberal members of the establishment media who demand the government seize firearms from law-abiding citizens. Earlier this week, MSNBC’s Ed Schultz tweeted in favor of gun confiscation.

    “We need to get guns and bullets and automatic weapons off the streets,” said CNN’s Don Lemon following the Sandy Hook massacre. “They should only be available to police officers and to hunt al-Qaeda and the Taliban and not hunt elementary school children.”

    Anti-Second Amendment advocates have attacked gun ownership from a number of angles. On Thursday, anti-gun zealot and filmmaker Michael Moore said the desire to own firearms and support the Second Amendment is tied to racism.

    “I think we’re a very frightened people,” Moore said. “I think we’ve been frightened ever since we landed on these shores. We were frightened of the native people… we were frightened of the slaves we brought over, as we should have been.”

    Moore said gun ownership “cuts down to the heart of our race problem that we still haven’t resolved.”
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2012
  2. SigMic

    SigMic Well-Known Member

    Hmm. Makes me think of the Gonzales flag....
  3. vtail

    vtail Well-Known Member

    He's playing the race card on this. Now I've seen everything....
  4. Romeo 33 Delta

    Romeo 33 Delta Well-Known Member

    Southern Democrats denying firearms to recently freed Blacks. Oh, forgot about that one, Mikey?:banghead: (Politics in this case is only for historical purposes, not bashing)
  5. Spats McGee

    Spats McGee Moderator

    The underlined part demonstrates that the bolded part is not true.
  6. 1911austin

    1911austin Well-Known Member

    What does hunting have to do with the 2nd amendment?
  7. Rob G

    Rob G Well-Known Member

    I've never understood why gun control advocates always assume gun owners are frightened of something. I'm not afraid that somebody will attack my family or I. I just aknowledge that such is possible and would prefer to have a variety of options at my disposal.

    Now if it was a clown attacking...then maybe I'd be afraid. Those things are just creepy...
  8. Jim K

    Jim K Well-Known Member

    At least yet, no one has suggested, as one group once did, the "execution, without the nonsense of a trial, of everyone who ever owned a gun of any kind and his or her family, or whose ancestors ever owned a gun of any kind."

    The idea was that there was a violence gene which was shown by a desire to own a gun, and that the only way to get rid of it was to eliminate its carriers.

    Needless to say, the proposal was called "reasonable" and "a common sense measure."

  9. Spats McGee

    Spats McGee Moderator

    Jim K, that's one I hadn't heard about. Care to expound a little and educate, well, me?
  10. JFtheGR8

    JFtheGR8 Well-Known Member

    So to confiscate guns from citizens they would send armed police to houses to search for them? What other item in the Bill of Rights do they wish to trample on?

    Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android
  11. Xyr

    Xyr Member

    I don't see confiscation by force happening. I do see semi-automatics being banned period. As well as a 7rd magazine limit. Disgusting.

    Go after criminals by taking away the rights of law-abiding citizens. If this were done to any other group in America the entire nation would be (ironically) up in arms.
  12. BADUNAME37

    BADUNAME37 Well-Known Member

    The criminal doesn't abide by any laws!

    The lawbreakers won't be restricted in any way if these "feel-good" laws are passed. Just suppose one or more lawbreakers shoot their way into your house. Does one really think the lawless are going to limit themselves to eight or ten rounds, total? After they shoot your door down, or your wall-in, they would be out of ammo.

    If they are going to restrict the amount of ammo a gun and magazines can hold, then they should be doing it across the board, including restricting those who are security of the people who come up with these laws.

    The law makers are heavily-guarded, yet they don't think you and I need the same level of protection they are afforded. I see this as a slippery-slope. It doesn't take much look at history to see what happens next.
  13. JohnnyK

    JohnnyK Well-Known Member

    I guess the proof is in the pudding... CT has some of the most strict gun laws.. see how well they worked... I'm impressed... NOT! Japan doesn't allow their citizenry to own guns... yet their suicide rate is double of the U.S. cars kill more people than guns... lets ban cars while we are at it... and cheeseburgers... they aren't good for the heart disease let's ban anything that can hurt people... no knives either... polluted air... let's ban that... everyone stop breathing... I wonder how many armed guards Mr. Cuomo has... let's start by taking their weapons...
  14. xXxplosive

    xXxplosive Well-Known Member

    Another option........Impeachment.
  15. M-Cameron

    M-Cameron member

    right....because after a violent revolution, and overthrowing a tyrannical government, our founding fathers main concern was to preserve the rights of hunters.........:banghead::banghead::banghead:
  16. Radagast

    Radagast Well-Known Member


    Impeachment is only a possibility if the legislature have a majority willing to a)stand up for enumerated rights and b) dismiss a fellow politician for violating those rights.

    Not going to happen.
  17. Jim K

    Jim K Well-Known Member

    Spats, I don't recall too much about it, but the "group" (I always suspected it was one or two nuts) was called Citizens Against Guns, and it spouted a fair amount of extremist insanity around 1968.

    There was a lot of that going on. Around the same time, I attended a county council hearing on a proposal to ban all guns in the county (it didn't go through). One of the speakers for the other side was a very pretty young lady from the National Council to Ban Handguns, an arm of the Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church, which was leading the anti-gun effort. (Not to be confused with the National Coalition to Control Handguns, which later morphed into the Brady Campaign.)

    I was not married at the time, and I thought I might get together with the woman and discuss guns in a more intimate setting. So after the hearing, I approached her and (for some reason I don't now recall) asked "What kind of law would make you happy?"

    Her response was, "I won't be happy until every one of you gun crazies is shot down in the street and the gutters run with your blood!"

    I sort of gave up the idea of a candlelight dinner, and revised my ideas about the Christian charity of the Methodists.

  18. Sky

    Sky Well-Known Member

    Guess who??

    maybe 70 million starved, shot, worked to death and had their lives taken by other various means.....death by a 1000 cuts...death by a 1000 laws??.. well meaning (in his mind) for the good of the whole nation etc etc leader who disagreed with anyone's right right to share air unless they submit. Ring any bells!!
  19. Spats McGee

    Spats McGee Moderator

    Thanks, Jim. I thought it might have been a more public, or more widespread, statement by a larger group, and wanted to check it out. Doesn't sound like anything I'll find on the internet, though. It is, however, quite a story!
  20. Bubba613

    Bubba613 member

    Some send Gov Cuomo a copy of Scalia's Heller decision. Quick.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page