Why gun control push fizzled?

[Sabretooth]

So, would you be OK with confiscating all hunting and sporting weapons, but leaving those that would be suited to defending against the tyranny of government? Of course not. Therefore the 2A has lots do do with hunting and sportsmen and target shooters and collectors and guys who just want to have a gun, you know. Because if it doesn't, then it doesn't really do anything.

I suppose. But that's not why it was written into the BOR.

Stupid democracy having stupid self correcting mechanisms already bult in. How are we to get truly afraid if we can just vote them out of office?

You make it sound like that's an easy thing to do in a blue state absolutely dominated by the five county area of a little place called NYC.

Not to mention that GOP candidates basically mail in a campaign for Governor in NY because they know it's a snowballs chance of going anywhere.

Hell, simply look at the POTUS elections. When was the last time a candidate even bothered to campaign in NY?

I know what you're saying, but it's a whole lot easier said than done.

Elections for Governor here aren't until fall of 2014. I can only hope people remember what's happening now when that time comes. We'll see, but don't color me optimistic on this one.

 

[newyorkguy]

<snip>

Not to mention that GOP candidates basically mail in a campaign for Governor in NY because they know it's a snowballs chance of going anywhere.

...

Now we're discussing New York State gubernatorial politics?

George Elmer Pataki is an American politician who was the 53rd Governor of New York. A member of the Republican Party, Pataki served three consecutive four-year terms from January 1, 1995, until December 31, 2006.

Divert and deny, anyone?

 

[CORed]

If true Colorado is an oddball that way.

I don't think it's Colorado. I know that the city of Denver prohibits the storage of unregistered or inoperable vehicles outdoors on private property; I've run afoul of the law myself. It wouldn't surprise me of other cities have similar laws. It's intended primarily to keep people from accumulating junk cars on their property.

Unfortunately, if you drive an old clunker, it also prohibits you from having a parts car.

 

[triforcharity]

Just to clarify, the one quote of a current politician wanting to ban all guns that gets thrown out every time we point out that no one really wants to take your guns was really just about assault weapons?

The one that is most popular is Feinstein, and yes, she was specifically referring to assault weapons. In this specific case. Though I do suspect that she would LOVE to have a complete repeal of the 2nd, based on some of the comments I have seen. I also think (I could be mistaken, but it would be a first ) That Gov. Cuomo out of NY has said similar things about confiscation of guns.

So even though I was willing to admit that there may be those on the fringe who want a ban, they have to be further out on the fringe than Feinstein! Hell, that isn't even on the same rug.

They're not all that fringe, but I see your point.

So, when we say that registration is not a precursor to confiscation, or gun ownership licensing is not a precursor to confiscation, who are you going to point to in support of the slippery slope argument?

Both of those would make removal (if that ever happened) much easier. It's a road I'd rather not go down personally.

 

[triforcharity]

If congress were to get the votes to repeal the 2nd Amendment, it would be due to the fact that the majority of the American public asked for it.

That's what we refer to as "democracy".

I'm doubtful of that first part. But, we've never really agreed on anything on guns or gun control.... BTW, the majority of the US supported expanding background checks....and guess what we don't have?

 

[casebro]

Can you tell us when that happened? Was this a blanket order by the US Government, or a state action effecting one particular type of weapon?

Canada http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_52pMg8qQcc&NR=1&feature=endscreen

A bureaucrat changed the rules, formerly legally registered long guns were confiscated.

I guess they discontinued long gun registry later?

 

[newyorkguy]

If congress were to get the votes to repeal the 2nd Amendment, it would be due to the fact that the majority of the American public asked for it.

That's what we refer to as "democracy".

I agree with the second part. To amend -- or in this case overturn -- a Constitutional amendment requires huge public support. Like ending the prohibition of the sale and use of beer, wine and liquor.

But getting it through the US House of Representatives and the Senate is only the first step. Then it has to be ratified by three-quarters of the states. Thus thirteen states can block any Constitutional Amendment.

So repealing the Second Amendment would require one of these states to agree:

1. Alabama
2. Alaska
3. Arizona
4. Arkansas
5. Florida
6. Georgia
7. Montana
8. North Dakota
9. South Dakota
10. Oklahoma
11. Tennessee
12. Texas
13. Utah
14. Wyoming

That's a tall order.

Given the fact there is no serious move underway to even consider banning guns nationwide, I'd say it's...not even remotely possible. Not in the lifetime of any one on this board anyway.

 

[newyorkguy]

So repealing the Second Amendment would require one two of these states to agree:

1. Alabama
2. Alaska
3. Arizona
4. Arkansas
5. Florida
6. Georgia
7. Montana
8. North Dakota
9. South Dakota
10. Oklahoma
11. Tennessee
12. Texas
13. Utah
14. Wyoming

Fixed that for me.

 

[WildCat]

Can you tell us when that happened? Was this a blanket order by the US Government, or a state action effecting one particular type of weapon?

It was in reference to what happened in Australia and Canada when certain classes of weapons were banned.

 

[Sabretooth]

As usual we start with one premise -- is any mainstream politician seriously proposing all guns be confiscated? -- and before you know it we're going off in another direction.

Not all guns (not yet anyway), but Cuomo did clearly state he was considering confiscating "assault weapons"...which if you actually read the SAFE Act is a pretty vague and all encompassing definition:

“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.”
[source]

Also worth mentioning is the way Cuomo is taking other avenues to confiscate firearms...such as this case where they attempted to revoke the pistol permit and seize guns of a gentleman who's only crime was that he was taking anti-anxiety meds.

What would you have liked Cuomo to say? Sportsmen and hunters seems to pretty much cover it all. Because he didn't include"people who want to protect themselves?" Is that what you're alluding to?

That's exactly what I alluding to. Cuomo owns a Remington. Whoopdee ****. So if you buy a gun for self-defense, that's not OK? That you must be a hunter or sportsmen to legitimately buy a firearm? But he "covered it all", eh? Please.

Now we're discussing New York State gubernatorial politics?

Divert and deny, anyone?

Seriously? One Rep governor out of six since 1974, and you're making a big deal out of it? Do you know why Pataki won?

Regardless, it doesn't disprove my point. NYC decides who the Governor's are going to be...and apparently, the area loves Cuomo and Bloomberg.

 

[NoahFence]

I'm doubtful of that first part. But, we've never really agreed on anything on guns or gun control.... BTW, the majority of the US supported expanding background checks....and guess what we don't have?

Repealing an entire Amendment is an entirely different beast. Can't even compare the two.

 

[newyorkguy]

Not all guns (not yet anyway), but Cuomo did clearly state he was considering confiscating "assault weapons"...which if you actually read the SAFE Act is a pretty vague and all encompassing definition:


Also worth mentioning is the way Cuomo is taking other avenues to confiscate firearms...such as this case where they attempted to revoke the pistol permit and seize guns of a gentleman who's only crime was that he was taking anti-anxiety meds.[/quote

I understand what you're saying but I don't agree your analysis is very reasonable.

I highlighted a part of your post. You condemn a law and the people who enacted it based on one anecdote. And Cuomo opposed that action, didn't he? The state admitted it was wrong. The gun was returned.

For the sake of argument, I'm not sure I'm okay with allowing someone on anti-anxiety medication to possess a gun. But that's what happened and I accept it.

I also note you mention Cuomo considered confiscating AWBs. Yet in the link you provide what he actually says is a bit different.

“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.”

Seriously? One Rep governor out of six since 1974, and you're making a big deal out of it? Do you know why Pataki won?

Regardless, it doesn't disprove my point. NYC decides who the Governor's are going to be...and apparently, the area loves Cuomo and Bloomberg.

Why was 1974 the cut-off? Because New York had a Republican governor from 1958-1974? To remind you, your point was a Republican's chances of being elected NY governor are the same as a snowball's in hell. Because New York had a Republican governor from 1996-2006 that doesn't disprove your point? Your saying it proves your point? How can it?

Two facts you might want to consider. In the 2010 election Cuomo won almost the entire state except for the part you live in.


The population of New York State is 19.4 million. Almost 60% of the state's residents live south of Poughkeepsie. You see what a tiny fragment of the state that is? People in western New York feel they're politically dominated by the downstate area? Understand. Can you understand that people downstate believe we pay more than our fair share to keep the state going?

 

[Sabretooth]

I understand what you're saying but I don't agree your analysis is very reasonable.

I highlighted a part of your post. You condemn a law and the people who enacted it based on one anecdote. And Cuomo opposed that action, didn't he? The state admitted it was wrong. The gun was returned.

Yes, his guns were returned to him, but only after his case went high-profile and exposed a group of individuals that were intentionally looking for ways to use SAFE to confiscate firearms under orders from Cuomo himself (which is also still under investigation).

And, yes, this is one anecdotal reason why the SAFE Act is a trainwreck, but I can go on and on and on and on if you like? You do realize that the vast majority of county boards, local and county sheriffs, state troopers, and most local jurisdictions have all condemned the law as a joke? Everyone with half a brain can see that the law violates the Constitution in multiple ways...not just the 2A. Here is a map of the NY counties that have all officially voted against the SAFE Act:

For the sake of argument, I'm not sure I'm okay with allowing someone on anti-anxiety medication to possess a gun. But that's what happened and I accept it.

Why? Those meds can be taken for a variety of different issues...not solely anxiety. Taking the med is no precursor to violent and/or criminal behavior either. I encourage you to check out some facts before passing judgement.

I also note you mention Cuomo considered confiscating AWBs. Yet in the link you provide what he actually says is a bit different.

Good lord....the fact that he had the balls to admit he considered a confiscation should be enough of a red flag. You do realize that there is a complete ban of any gun that resembles an "assault weapon" of Cuomo's definition.

And don't even get me started on the "message of necessity" horse **** that he abused to get this law passed. This whole law was purposely crafted to get the "evil guns" away from citizens as quickly as possible.

Why was 1974 the cut-off? Because New York had a Republican governor from 1958-1974? To remind you, your point was a Republican's chances of being elected NY governor are the same as a snowball's in hell. Because New York had a Republican governor from 1996-2006 that doesn't disprove your point? Your saying it proves your point? How can it?

I'm not going to derail the thread further with this garbage...but what does pre-1974 have to do with today? This state is completely dominated by the D vote. That's a fact and I'll let you read about it.

Two facts you might want to consider. In the 2010 election Cuomo won almost the entire state except for the part you live in.
[qimg]http://i1336.photobucket.com/albums/o646/tommyguy0421/JREF/NYS2010Election_zps3b2d8b63.jpg[/qimg]

SMH. The only reason Cuomo won was due to name recognition from his father. WNY also recognized that Mario Cuomo (Andy's dad) cut funding to countless WNY projects throughout his tenure, so voters here weren't very receptive of the son that is taking Mario's perspective of spending on NYC and forgetting the rest of the state.

The population of New York State is 19.4 million. Almost 60% of the state's residents live south of Poughkeepsie. You see what a tiny fragment of the state that is? People in western New York feel they're politically dominated by the downstate area? Understand. Can you understand that people downstate believe we pay more than our fair share to keep the state going?

And you are probably right. But when we see fists full of tax dollars flow into NYC, it's more than frustrating. WNY gets the scraps, and we do with what we can. I mean, what's this crap with looking to build the NHL Islanders a new arena in Brooklyn for when they move out of Nassau? The state was asked to help with simple stadium renovations for the Buffalo Bills and funding was declined and deemed as "unnecessary". But they can build a new arena...after they refused to partake in renovations of the Nassau arena? It's like NYC is trying to find new ways to throw away the money they get from the rest of the state.

NYC will eventually destroy the financial bubble of the entire state.


ETA: I'm not talking about NY politics in this thread any further. You want to discuss it more in depth, then open a new thread, please.

 

[newyorkguy]

<snip>



I'm not going to derail the thread further with this garbage...but what does pre-1974 have to do with today? This state is completely dominated by the D vote. That's a fact and I'll let you read about it.

....
ETA: I'm not talking about NY politics in this thread any further. You want to discuss it more in depth, then open a new thread, please.

You're being very unfair. You were the one that brought up this line of discussion. I was the one who objected to it, remember?

As usual we start with one premise -- is any mainstream politician seriously proposing all guns be confiscated? -- and before you know it we're going off in another direction.

....

Now we're discussing New York State gubernatorial politics?



....

You stated in a reply to someone whom I know to be from Texas, that New York is so partisan that no Republican even has a chance to be elected governor. I pointed out that in the sixteen years from 1996 to now a Republican served as our Governor for twelve of those years.

You stated that Cuomo was only governor because New York City elected him. That's not true either. If it was, if Cuomo had lost the state outside the city and only won because of a huge majority in the city, I'd be willing to concede that. I'm a moderate guy.

The fact is, as I recall, the pundits said Cuomo won because the suburbs voted for him. That the upstate Republican vote and the New York City Democratic vote basically cancelled one another out.

I'm sorry you're angry. If you make statements you should expect someone may challenge them. That shouldn't be a surprise.

 

[Sabretooth]

You're being very unfair. You were the one that brought up this line of discussion. I was the one who objected to it, remember?

Be that as it may, we are still derailing the topic of the thread. The poster I was responding to suggested voting is the way to change things, and I simply pointed out how impossible it was to have a conservative voice in a state dominated by liberals.

Like I said, I have no problem debating NY politics, but we should take it elsewhere if you wish to continue the conversation.

 

[triforcharity]

Repealing an entire Amendment is an entirely different beast. Can't even compare the two.

I'm fully aware, thank you. My point was, and it's my fault I wasn't clear, I thought it was clear, is that even if congress has the support of the majority of Americans (even for something as simple as expanded background checks) congress doesn't always listen to the will of the people. Congress rarely does....

 

[newyorkguy]

...The poster I was responding to suggested voting is the way to change things, and I simply pointed out how impossible it was to have a conservative voice in a state dominated by liberals.
...

Is it anymore difficult than having a liberal voice in a conservative state? Are you suggesting voting is not the way to change things? I don't think that idea originated with Dr. Keith. IIRC that's the basis of our entire system of government.

Care for some cheese?

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Well, in California, they just passed a pigouvian tax on ammunition purchases. that might be applied across all future states.

 

[newyorkguy]

Well, in California, they just passed a pigouvian tax on ammunition purchases. that might be applied across all future states.

Could be. Anything's possible but somehow I have a feeling we won't be seeing it happen in these fourteen states:

1. Alabama
2. Alaska
3. Arizona
4. Arkansas
5. Florida
6. Georgia
7. Montana
8. North Dakota
9. South Dakota
10. Oklahoma
11. Tennessee
12. Texas
13. Utah
14. Wyoming

 

[NWO Sentryman]

We're talking about general legislation, not constitutional amendments. Now, California is one of the biggest gun markets, and gun manufacturers will have to change their policies to suit California's laws.