Long Island Shooters Forum banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Clinger
Joined
·
4,824 Posts
The fact that the administration has pre-conceived presumption that law abiding gun-owners will not comply with their law should indicate they have a plan to deal with non- compliance. The prophecy When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns....... will be true law abiding gun-owners will be outlaws.... and they will have guns..
 
  • Like
Reactions: Swstock

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,803 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
I read that and said WTF as well. However I think proposals like that and Cuomo saying he first wanted confiscation are said so that they can be taken off the table to show they are willing to negotiate. And our Republican representatives let us down because they brag about how they were able to get the confiscation off the table. They really let us down, but how can anyone who owns a gun or respects our freedom not be outraged by the Democrats of this state. We all saw a video where a Democratic Senator from the Bronx said this law will do nothing but I am voting yes because it is our party who is bringing these laws forth.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,130 Posts
I read that and said WTF as well. However I think proposals like that and Cuomo saying he first wanted confiscation are said so that they can be taken off the table to show they are willing to negotiate. .....................
Exactly this. They ask for outrageous things, then give them up in the name of compromise.
 

·
dislike Cuomo!
Joined
·
4,995 Posts
I saw this on FB and figured I would pass it along. We do not promote illegal activities on this site, but Thomas Jefferson would be proud.

http://www.thesleuth...-state-history/
I hear you about the "illegal" stuff but you know what, thats a load of bull sh*t and everyone here nows it, staff included. No one is saying to go file off serial numbers, sell drugs, rob people, kill people, steal, or buy rocket launchers, this is a POLITICAL INSTRUMENT, and the only thing NYers (and probably many to follow) have in the way of effective counter measures. The civil disobedience is about law abiding criminals being turned into felons for rights that are constitutionally protected. Thtas nucking futs!

This isn't some new traffic law that requires you to move over to the middle lane if a police or emergency vehicle is on the shoulder resulting in a $20 ticket, this is a law that makes a good citzen yesterday into a fu(king felon today!! IT should be resisted, it should be defied, and it should openly be scorned.

You all know he was trying to, and wants to confiscate your weapons. This is no tin foil BS, if you register, YOU WILL LOSE YOUR GUNS after the next act of mass violence. After what happened during the Katrina emergency, I wouldnt trust the government with my effing office chair let alone my guns. Make no mistake, people like cuomo do not have any respect for the second amendment, when you need guns the most, like after the next hurricane sandy, they will they WILL COME FOR YOUR ASSAULT WEAPONS.

DO NOT REGISTER. DO NOT COMPLY. DO DEFY.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,853 Posts
Exactly this. They ask for outrageous things, then give them up in the name of compromise.
Compromise requires both parties to give SOMETHING up, in order for both parties to gain.

WE GAINED NOTHING THEY TOOK OUR NATURAL BORN RIGHTS.

This was not a compromise on any level.
 

·
AH SHADAP, VARMINT!!!
Joined
·
1,039 Posts
A bill mandating confiscation would have been better than this bill for several reasons:
1) It would have been a disaster from the start because it would have been unenforceable.
2) The law would have been seen as unconstitutional immediately and would have wound up in Supreme Court in record time.
3) It would aroused the ire of gun owners who are "on the fence", and of Constitutional scholars to a degree this law doesn't.
4) It may have forced the ACLU to act. Like or hate them they would have to defend our civil liberties or become an irrelevant organization. Either way it would be a win.
 

·
Right-wing Sith
Joined
·
6,538 Posts
A bill mandating confiscation would have been better than this bill for several reasons:
1) It would have been a disaster from the start because it would have been unenforceable.
2) The law would have been seen as unconstitutional immediately and would have wound up in Supreme Court in record time.
3) It would aroused the ire of gun owners who are "on the fence", and of Constitutional scholars to a degree this law doesn't.
4) It may have forced the ACLU to act. Like or hate them they would have to defend our civil liberties or become an irrelevant organization. Either way it would be a win.
Your first & third points have some merit. However, not points 2 & 4.

2. Nothing gets to the Supreme Court in record time, unless maybe the Supreme Court wants to rush it. Don't count on that.

4. It is wishful thinking that the American Criminal Liberties Union (aka ACLU) will defend gun rights of honest citizens.
 

·
Temp. self-imposed ban.
Joined
·
4,410 Posts
Compromise requires both parties to give SOMETHING up, in order for both parties to gain.

WE GAINED NOTHING THEY TOOK OUR NATURAL BORN RIGHTS.

This was not a compromise on any level.
Compronise regardless of its book definition, leaves both parties unsatisfied. Democrats are smarter, they ask for much more then they want. So it will look like they too gave something up. If we had a representation in the political arena, we would come with countrer proposal, which would not be acceptible to most. So when we would "compromise" we would still be left with plenty. But the Republican Party is isolated and irrelevant more than ever. Instead of sticking to principals, they try to ponder to every little group. While that party of castrated sheep is being beat in its own game, we are losing our rights and freedoms as a side effect.
We need to raise funds and run our candidates. We need to have more money and overthrow the Republican establishment or have enough money to run and win the third party candidates. It is still possible on the local town and county levels. A journey of 1,000 miles begins with one step.
 

·
Clinger
Joined
·
4,824 Posts
I for one do not think that SCOTUS should have to fight our battles.... they proved they are not willing with the Obamacare decision. no we need to do this ourselves... the power rests wit the people.... whether by the vote or by other means .... the framers... envisioned all of this it should be of no surprise ...
 

·
AH SHADAP, VARMINT!!!
Joined
·
1,039 Posts
Compromise requires both parties to give SOMETHING up, in order for both parties to gain.

WE GAINED NOTHING THEY TOOK OUR NATURAL BORN RIGHTS.

This was not a compromise on any level.
Excellent! Couldn't agree more! If Jake keeps this up I will have to stop making jokes about him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
413 Posts
I for one do not think that SCOTUS should have to fight our battles.... they proved they are not willing with the Obamacare decision.
With Obamacare, it came down to the decision of Chief Justice Roberts. He sided with Obamacare only to return a favor to him for botching his inaugural oath in public in 2008. Anyone could have seen that coming.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
116 Posts
Its our duty to disobey unconstitutional law. We have capitulated enough to other infringements.

If the unSAFE Act is not stopped, then all Semi's will be next/. Then afterwards, everything else

All in the name of "we don't need it" and "reasonable"
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top