Andrew Cuomo shows when you just don’t have facts and logic to support your argument, just start shouting. From this story:
“Gun violence has been on a rampage as we know firsthand and as we know painfully,” said the governor. “We must stop the madness, my friends. In one word it’s just ‘enough.’ It has been enough. We need a gun policy in this state that is reasonable, that is balanced, that is measured.”
What is reasonable about infringing upon the rights of others? Who determines what is reasonable, and by what standard?
The governor continued by saying his gun control proposals are not about “taking away people’s guns.”
This is textbook doublespeak. His proposals “aren’t about taking away people’s guns”.
ban: Noun. An official or legal prohibition.
If you prohibit something you get rid of it.
Next up: Left is right and up is down.
“We respect hunters and sportsmen. This is not taking away peoples’ guns,” Mr. Cuomo said. ”I own a gun. I own a Remington shotgun. I’ve hunted, I’ve shot. That’s not what this is about. It’s about ending the unnecessary risk of high-capacity assault rifles. That’s what this is about.”
The right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with hunters and sportsmen. It has to do with the right of an individual to defend themselves.
Translation: My shotgun doesn’t look scary. Nevermind that a 12 gauge shotgun slug weighs 7 times more than a .223 round (what most AR-15s use).
Also, police can purchase actual assault rifles, as in the ones that really are fully automatic. As governor you are protected by police details. Does anyone in the New York state police have access to an actual assault rifle? That fact is curiously absent from your tirade.
hypocrisy: Noun. The practice of claming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform.
What is unnecessary risk? Risk from whom? There are millions of law abiding gun owners out there that have never gone on a killing rampage. Why should they pay for the actions of a lunatic?
To that end, the governor outlined the items on his seven-point gun plan.
“Number 1: Enact the toughest assault weapon ban in the nation, period!” he shouted, before ticking off his other new gun control proposals. “
Assault weapons, as in actual assault weapons that can fire in fully auotmatic mode, were regulated in 1934 as part of the National Firearms Act. Then they were again regulated in the Gun Control Act of 1968, and then new sales to civilians were banned in 1986.
A semi-automatic AR-15 or any other semi-automatic rifle is NOT an assault weapon, though we can see why you like using that term because it sounds scary and gets an emotional response from people. While an AR-15 and other “evil black rifles” may be made out of synthetic materials, at the end of the day it functions just like any other semi-automatic hunting rifle.
Individuals who don’t have facts and logic on their side need to use emotional party tricks to get people on board to whatever they are selling.
Number two, close the private sale loophole by requiring federal background checks.
Are you going to push for federal background checks for sales of hammers, vehicles, knives, and any other device or tool that can be used to inflict harm? Keep in mind that last year more people died in automobile accidents than due to firearms. We will be on the lookout for that announcement in the near future as in order for you to stay consistent in your “argument” you would need to do so.
Number three, ban high-capacity magazines.
What is a “high capacity” magazine? High is a relative term. Relative to the number 10?
So where did you come up with that number? Why 10? Why not 11? Or 9?
Or how about this?
How about I, as a free individual, choose to have whatever magazine size I want?
You see, if you want me to sign on to this idea of accepting a limit on what I can own, then what you are doing is taking my right and asking me to treat it as a privilege.
I own my rights. You do not. You can infringe upon them, but they are mine. However, you can trick people into thinking that a right, which I own, is really a privilege, meaning that I think you own it and grant it to me.
I won’t turn my right into a privilege.
A right expressed in longer form is the “right to be left alone”.
If I agreed with you then you obviously wouldn’t have a problem with my decision.
The real power of rights come into play is when I disagree with you. My rights aren’t subject to “reasonable” compromise. Once I cede to you accepting an arbitrary limit to be placed on my rights, then tomorrow when you determine that 9, or 8, or whatever is now the max limit on what I can own I effectively have no argument to counter that because 9 is as arbitrary as 10.
Therefore, I refuse to accept your arbitrary limit as it isn’t yours to impose.
So-called “reasonable” limits on my rights effectively destroy my rights.
And what do you do with all the magazines that are already out there? Do you ban possession of those as well? Why should law abiding citizens have their property stolen?
If you force a buyback, why should the taxpayers pay for them?
If you grandfather them, how do you know what is a pre-ban magazine compared to a post-ban magazine? Very few magazines have datestamps on them.
What would be the penalty for having a magazine like that? Would it be a felony, such as the case with a state like Massachusetts? Why should a person with a piece of metal and a spring in it go to jail with murderers and rapists for exercising a right?
That Mr. Cuomo, is Orwellian.
Number four, enact tougher penalties for illegal gun use, guns in school grounds and violent gangs.
Punishing those who infringe upon the rights of others is proper, such as in the case for murderers or rapists. But if a person walking down the street carrying a sidearm or perhaps driving by a school on the way to legal activity, such as driving to a range, would they run afoul of your arbitrary laws?
Number five, keep guns from people who are mentally ill.
How would you achieve this? No one wants an insane person to go on a rampage, but how does infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens keep a gun out of the hands of an insane person?
The answer: It doesn’t.
In the Sandy Hook shootings, the firearms were obtained illegally. The shooting still happened.
In the Columbine shootings, the firearms were obtained illegally. The shooting still happened.
Note the schools were already gun free zones (which you advocate). The shootings still happened.
What does stop a murderer? An armed victim, such as in the case of the Oregon mall shooting when a civilian carrying his Glock 22 stopped a lunatic who was going on a rampage.
So it begs the question, why do you want innocent children to be defenseless? Why shouldn’t a parent be able to protect their child at school just like they would at home?
Number six, ban direct internet sales of ammunition in New York.
Number seven, create a state [National Instant Criminal Background Check System] check on all ammunition purchases.”
And this would do what? As we know, it is completely impossible to buy ammunition in Pennsylvania or Vermont and bring it back to the state.
Mr. Cuomo predicted the rest of the country will follow New York’s lead and adopt stiffer gun laws.
“New York State led the way on guns once before. It was the Sullivan’s law of 1911, which was the first-in-the-nation gun control law. A model law,” he explained.
That’s factually incorrect. Earlier examples of gun control can be found by looking at earlier laws, such as this 1840 North Carolina statute:
That if any free negro, mulatto, or free person of color, shall wear or carry about his or her person, or keep in his or her house, any shot gun, musket, rifle, pistol, sword, dagger or bowie-knife, unless he or she shall have obtained a licence therefor from the Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions of his or her county, within one year preceding the wearing, keeping or carrying therefor, he or she shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and may be indicted therefor.
Perhaps the governor should be a bit more honest as to his intentions. Mr. Cuomo, perhaps you should recognize the racist roots of gun control.
Back then, the whole idea was “safety” as well. The bureaucrats that passed these laws did so to keep the white population “safe”. You see people who have their rights trampled tend to get very irritated with that treatment. What better way to keep an oppressor safe than to outright disarm or license their rights into the oblivion of those whose labor pays for your ivory tower?
Gun control isn’t really about safety, is it Mr. Cuomo?
It’s about disarming segments of the populace should they decide that whatever plan you want to put into place isn’t agreeable to their future.
If gun control actually stopped violence, then the gun free zones at the Aurora theater, Columbine, and Sandy Hook wouldn’t have happened.
But they did.
The cold facts are that gun free zones make it easier for lunatics to go on a murderous rampage. And you support those target rich environments.
“I know that the issue of gun control is hard. I know that it’s political. I know it’s controversial,” the governor said, his voice rising with every word. “I say to you, forget the extremists! It’s simple: no one hunts with an assault rifle! No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer! Too many innocent people have died already! End this madness now!”
By the end of the speech, the governor was shouting.
When you can’t make your point with facts and logic, shouting is the way to go.
And the use of the term “extremist” is notable. How is it that someone who believes in individuals having rights is an “extremist”?
Perhaps Mr. Cuomo’s definition of extremist is “Anyone who thinks differently than I”.
“No one needs….” Mr. Cuomo, what you need to do is go back and study the difference between a right and a privilege.
Since “no one needs 10 bullets” I am sure you have issued an executive order to the state police letting them know to only use 10 round magazines in their actual assault rifles and any of their sidearms.
“Pass safe, reasonable gun control in the State of New York! Make this state safer! Save lives! Set an example for the rest of the nation! Let them look at New York and say, ‘This is what you can do! This is what you should do!’ This is New York, the progressive capital, you should them how we lead! We can do it! We’ve done it before and we can do it again.”
I would agree that New York does lead the way as the progressive capital. The near bankruptcy of the state due to reckless spending and the wholesale infringement of rights are straight out of the progressive playbook.