“No one hunts with an assault rifle. No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer.”— N.Y. Governor Andrew Cuomo in his State of the State address January 9. Cuomo called for “the toughest assault weapons ban in the nation” and the elimination of all high-capacity magazines.
I'm so glad I don't live in NY. This guy is a quack. The funny thing about his statement is that he's wrong on every level. Not only does the second amendment have absolutely nothing to do with hunting ( or they would have mentioned that, you know the founders were pretty specific in their writing ), but assault can be and are used for hunting. This governor shows his ignorance by thinking deer is the only thing that people hunt. If you've ever hunted boars then you would know it's very common for hunters to use the infamous ar-15 to get the job done. Kinda blows a .223 sized hole in his logic.
Another thing, he says, "No one would need 10 rounds," so the logic here is if we don't need something that it should be banned?! That is the worst logic I've ever seen. We might as well ban cadillacs or big houses because no one really needs them. This is America- we don't only live on what we need, but what we want. People want ar-15's and extended magazines. We know this because they wouldn't be sold out across the country otherwise.
@Heian Oh I should learn how to read? Along with "bear arms" it states "shall not be infringed". Maybe you don't know what "infringe" means so ill give you a little lesson because you seem like you need it, it means shall not limit. So if I want to own a semiautomatic of any type, a handgun or a shotgun for whatever reason I feel, I will, and I will not let people like you who do not understand basic words tell me what my rights will be, especially when you just demonstrated you lack more than complete knowledge of the topic. Maybe next time you try and reply to someone on ANY topic, you might want to realize you have no clue what you're talking about, at all. As for a side note, no one owns automatic weapons dum dum
Does anybody knows how many bullets does a secret service gun have? Just asking because I would think that every citizen would have a right to be protected at least the same way the president is, wouldn't you?
And don't forget these other Cuomo Classics!:
"Nobody needs to hunt, you can buy meat at a store"
"One morning I shot a deer in my pajamas. How he got into my pajamas I will never know"
"Only men with small penises own guns. I was the first to want to ban guns!"
the 2nd amendment isnt about hunting, who told you that load of crap? people who believe anything out of this mans mouth or anything about the 2nd amendment being about hunting should learn how to read
The sick thing is: assault rifles are more justified than hunting rifles or handguns on a reasonable reading of the 2nd amendment. If you were going to reasonably start a militia/home guard/whatever, you probably would be - as groups in the Middle East do as they build their own private armies - build around AK-47s or equivalents.
So, one woman at my office was telling me how her husband demanded that this year, if they were going to have a Christmas Tree, it was going to be real and they were going to hunt it - as in, they take a few guns, some bear, a boatload of bullets, and shoot at it until it came down. He was going to use a shotgun but apparently he'd done it with an assault rifle of some sort when he was younger with his dad.
People hunt with shotguns. Are we banning them to? Cali has the toughest gun laws in the nation and yet shootings still occur.
Cuomo's right on that account, but nothing would happen unless the same sort of ban applies to other states, like Virgina.
This is screaming for Federal intervention, but good luck to getting anything done at that level.
Gotta love Obamacare and the new medical device sales tax imposed on the companies. Didn't hurt the companies as they just reduced head count. My favorite instrumentation sales rep was just down sized. Way to go Obama
@Wi11brooks Firstly, I don't know why you would just create a whole new comment. You're either trying to duck context with your wildly ridiculous response, or just so self-important that you think everything you post should be at the top of the page. Tough call.
On to the definition of "infringe": clearly you do not know it. Considering how you think "shall not be infringed" means "should never be limited or have restrictions". Banning assault weapons still allows people to "bear arms", even if it's not the arms you want to be touting. Bending the definition of "infringe" (and I'm sure you will look for a definition somewhere that fits your interpretation) does not a good argument make.
Aside from your logical failings (there are many) I am glad the reference to automatic weapons went soaring over your head. Automatic weapons exist but are not sold, but I don't see you pointing to this as an "infringement" of the second amendment. So please, be consistent; are you advocating the sale of automatic weapons? Or is the limitation of gun sale not an "infringement"? Try to form a coherent response.
No, I really don't want people to be more protected than the President. I want the President to be protected with way more firepower than any private citizen could hope to amass. That way, I know the President is the most protected person in the country and that nobody can challenge his protection level.
@reallife I guess you either don't realize, or think it would be inconvenient for your false equivalence comparison, but those guns also come with extremely strict oversight and restrictions on use, down to round-by-round records.
The ironic part of your comment is, you think you're making an argument for possession of any sort of firearm, when you're only really bringing forth an argument for extremely strict gun control.
@Wi11brooks And the second amendment doesn't specify that you have the right to military-grade, high-capacity, automatic weaponry, either. It is "bear arms" not "wield the most lethal weaponry you can get your hands on". Maybe you should learn how to read, yourself.
@forgottenlord "reasonable" being used in the loosest definition. "Reasonable" in this case is "In fitting with what I want it to mean".
@curt3rd People speed all the time so why have speed limits?
A lot of kids drink alcohol so why have age limits?
In fact, people break a lot of laws so why have any?
That's not being a conservative, that's being a nihilist.
No. A shotgun is not an assault weapon.
Companies with over 50 employees, which should be offering some coverage to their people anyways. It won't affect small business. What does this have to do with the topic at hand?
@Heian @Wi11brooks actually automatic weapons are still sold and owned to this day and aren't that terribly hard to obtain if you're willing to cross the red tape. While I agree with you in saying they aren't really infringing on the second amendment right, but they are pressing on it pretty hard and it will have greater consequences than would seem. This will hurt us economically in a time when it matters most. The weapons that use these extended magazines will all but disappear and this will force the manufacturers that make them to scale down operations, which of course means layoffs. These same companies will also no longer be able to contribute the millions upon millions of dollars in tax revenue from the sales of these weapons. This is why the slippery slope argument absolutely holds water. They started by banning ( well mostly banning ) automatic rifles, now they're limiting semi automatic weapons. I wonder what they'll ban next after the next mass shooting? The gov't doesn't care about a handful of people that died in a shooting. They care about using the people's fears to pursue their own agenda. If you don't believe watch the news. The evidence is all around us.
@Heian @Wi11brooks The fact that I posted a reply in a new comment or not means nothing because you still got it, didnt you? As for you proving once again you lack knowledge of basic definition, infringe, no matter WHERE you look up a definition, its the same: actively break the terms of(as in law or agreement) and act so as to limit or undermine. It doesn't matter where you look up a definition, a definition is a definition but you fail to recognize logic. The fact that I said "no one owns automatic weapons" refers to the fact that they are a military weapon and can no longer be imported from outside the United States, since these acts started being put in place since 1934 we obviously had no choice to allow this as they were adapted throughout the years and there was no controversy because it was accepted as a military arm. No shit automatic weapons exist, thanks for informing me. Now they are saying we are not allowed to own rifles semi automatic, handguns or shotguns, do you honestly not think this is an infringement? Or are you just so stubborn that its your way or the highway, which would make perfect sense for you lack basic knowledge of the topic, throw out an argument that lacks validity and you STILL assume you're correct. I personally do not own a firearm but I am an American citizen and I can tell when our rights mean nothing to those in charge. Along with a spelling test where you would match definitions, you might want to make your way into college and learn a basic foundation of history, trust me pal, it'll help you. As for your next response, don't bother because it'll just prove even more how stubborn you are as you struggle to support your reasoning.
Or he didn't understand the reply button.
You do not need to be hostile and attack people immediately just because they did something you didn't like. Politely correct his action if you must, but I only bother with that if they show a clear pattern of doing something unreasonable.
@Heian @Wi11brooks but when the second amendment was made the people were allowed to have the same weaponry that the military had. It was modern and had the same killing power as anything the military had. Now I know our founding fathers could have never predicted the weapon technology we have today, but it's safe to say their intention was for the people to be able to fight against a tyrannical government, even their own. Don't forget, they had just spent the last few years fighting their own government, so they designed our country with the possibility it could happen again, so they provided every right to enable the "people" to do just that. You don't have to just look at the second amendment. The entire bill of rights was made to protect the people from the government.
Ok, if you were to form a home militia - and that is explicitly what the second amendment talks about - what weapon would you use? Militia's are for military operations. While we may question the value of having militias in a modern America and whether it's reasonable to have them, at the end of the day, a militia is simply a private, citizens army with no real requirement that it belong to a government entity. And what would you build a private army out of? Generally speaking, the same class of weapons that is the mainstay of government armies: assault rifles.
I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying that a reasonable reading of the second amendment makes assault rifles much easier to justify than weapons that aren't as obviously military in nature. The second amendment does not, in its text, protect your right to hunt. The second amendment doesn't protect your right to defend yourself - though one theoretically could make an argument with some massive stretching of the term militia.
@forgottenlord Clearly the responsible use of arms that our founding fathers intended.
@forgottenlord Ooh, booze and assault weapons. That can't end badly.
@Heian @Wi11brooks So you honestly think by the two comments I've posted you understand my reading comprehension? You must be brain dead to believe that would make a single ounce of sense. You also think I'm circling the "same tired argument" even though in my responses to you I've corrected you, helped you learn a definition or two and informed you on the part of the 2nd amendment you seemed to lack and not understand. I'd also like to inform you that just because you add a few multi syllable words in a sentence it doesn't make you sound any smarter, especially when you say "in your specific and convenient interpretation", yes it is convenient because the the bill of rights states my argument in black and white, as for my "interpretation", it's the same interpretation as the rest of the people that understand simple sentences, maybe not to you though. As for you insisting on bringing up automatic weapons, you seem to not understand that automatic weapons have nothing to do with this debate, nothing to do with the put forth legislation and nothing to do with the current events going on, there is absolutely no point in bringing up automatic weapons, as for your argument about the so called "infringement" on them, you can reread my previous response to you. It's very easy to understand so you might only have a little trouble comprehending it. The one thing you said which makes it completely and indefinitely clear that you are so far out of the loop and so far behind with the topic that you do not understand that, yes, they want handguns too, maybe you don't understand what "gun ban" and "gun confiscation" means but you should educate yourself on the definition, simply go wherever you want to go to get your information, no, not a snapple cap, and learn something. The fact that you think I'm trying to sound superior makes me think that you're a little self conscious or you honestly do think I'm superior because I said nothing of that sort, all I'm doing is informing you of things you cannot grasp. Think of me as your spell check, but in this case it's for everything you say that has to do with this topic.
@Wi11brooks The only thing you've proven is how underdeveloped your reading comprehension is. You are just circling the same tired argument, which is entirely entrenched in your specific and convenient interpretation.
Though you continue to just...completely miss the point in the vein of the comment regarding automatic weapons. You seem to fail to understand the entire concept, though you are doing a superb job of making my argument for me. A shame it just sails over your head.
Also, I should point out your completely imaginary claim that "they" won't allow you to have handguns. If you have to overblow the situation to make an argument, you truly have none.
As hard as you try to condescend, your basic ignorance really undermines whatever efforts you make to sound superior.
You're making a logical fallacy. You presume that because I say that the founding fathers basically authorized the armament of a private army that means I think they were right to do so. I don't.
But they did believe in it seeing as they launched their own civil war (you might know of it as the War of Independence) and used the necessity of being armed as the reasoning behind having such fully armed militias.
(Side note: I hate the second amendment. Further, I do not believe the second amendment justifies or does not justify anything - except when it comes to what's legal, but that's irrelevant to what's moral. The people who sit behind the second amendment and defend it are as useless as those who sit behind a pruned version of the bible to justify anti-homosexuality. That said, I'm incredibly indifferent to gun control. The weapons that are used in gun violence are often available in many other industrialized nations yet none of them have the problems that then US has and I have come to believe that the hyperfocus on the second amendment detracts focus from trying to figure out why these problems actually exist.)
Though your argument that we should be armed enough to mount civil war? I hardly think that anyone looked upon a bloody field with brother shooting brother, and thought "Just as our founding fathers intended."
The founding fathers believed in protecting the arms sufficient that you could mount a civil war. Responsible is hardly the term I would use for the founding father's intent.
You appear to be a low-information voter (a.k.a. Obama voter), so I doubt that you have heard of this report before today.
@KevinGroenhagen Democrat policies wrecked the economy? You must be living in a land of make-believe if you want to pass that one off as fact.
In terms of intelligence, you seriously are the lowest common denominator. Please stop attempting to insult others - while amusingly oblivious, it is becoming tiresome.
@KevinGroenhagen Clearly you don't understand what "Subverting the law" means, which is funny considering how you throw around the term "ignoramus". Your argument displays your ignorance clearly.
Shift the topic all you want, but you can't obfuscate your clear lack of understanding, no matter how often you dodge response. Your greatest defense is your impregnable ignorance.
You do a good job of solidifying the image of outspoken and ignorant opponent of Obamacare. You're practically a caricature.
He would rather limit the growth of his business, so as not to provide competitive benefits to his employees. It's that whole 'John Galt' nonsense - "if you're gonna tax me well I'm just not going to work so there!". That's some economic genius right there. No wonder they've wrecked the economy every time they get put in charge of it. They think cutting off your nose to spite your face is a good business plan.
You're like a bunch a ill-behaved 5 year olds threatening to hold your breath if you don't get another cookie.
You're missing my point: I don't care about the guys right at the boundary that much. The boundary is where we say it's reasonable to assume the company should be generating enough revenue that health care should not be an unreasonable burden on it. That's why that boundary was set there. If the guys at that boundary want to use gimmicks to get around it, I'm really not going to lose much sleep over it. But the simple idea of setting that boundary ensures that the guys that are well above it actually do have to provide health care - or pay their fee. No amount of gimmickry will stop that because at some point, it hurts them more than helps them.
Here's the thing: if you have 100, 200 employees and you split the company 3, 4, 5 times just to save on Health Insurance, I have much bigger problems to worry about. But at some point, splitting it up more is going to create such a bureaucratic nightmare that it just isn't worth it for the guys at the top and at that point, they'll be covering the insurance. Really, most people are going to be covered and if I worried about every little loophole, my blood pressure would be perpetually at the level of your own.
And how do you manage the IP if you do the split?