Dj.....does an elected official saying confiscation is on the table qualify as a step?
In an interview conducted Thursday on WGDJ-AM, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said he will propose gun control legislation in the 2013 session, and everything will be on the table — up to and including outright confiscation of weapons.
Dj.....does an elected official saying confiscation is on the table qualify as a step?
In an interview conducted Thursday on WGDJ-AM, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said he will propose gun control legislation in the 2013 session, and everything will be on the table — up to and including outright confiscation of weapons.
More from the same interview:
Mr. Cuomo, speaking on WGDJ-AM, said gun control had not recently been among the most discussed topics in the capital, so he had reached out to lawmakers to gauge where they stood before he made his proposals final.
He added that he was focusing his attention on changing state laws restricting the possession of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. The governor described the state’s existing ban on those items as having “more holes than Swiss cheese.”
“I don’t think legitimate sportsmen are going to say, ‘I need an assault weapon to go hunting,’ ” he said. At the same time, he noted that he owns a shotgun that he has used for hunting, and said, “There is a balance here — I understand the rights of gun owners; I understand the rights of hunters.”
In the interview, Mr. Cuomo did not offer specifics about the measures he might propose, but, while discussing assault weapons, he said: “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.”
Judging from your post #24, you are in full agreement with the confiscation of assault weapons. I look forward to your support of his statements in the discussion. 
Doesnt have to be confiscation now does it. A ban on new sales is an option as well.
Lets now put words in others mouths shall we
I thought Rick had a monopoly on backtracking. I guess I thought wrong.
If we are taking a position that assault weapons are illegal (and if you read the statement from Cumo that there are more holes in the enforcement than swiss cheese), having the weapons out there simply is ripe with danger.
But of course you know this because you were concerned enough for some reason to express support for a ban in post #24.
huh? back tracked? I dont think so my good friend.
I said I supported a ban on assault weapons this is true. I did not define specifics and as we have a rational debate about it, ideas should develop and be exchanged, some will be scrapped as we go but in the end we may actually have something that may be workable.
If you want to argue and twist words I will not participate as its a waste of time and one of the main reasons I no longer come to this site.
That and all the changes are pretty lame and make this more of a kitty cat site then one for adults.
huh? back tracked? I dont think so my good friend.
I said I supported a ban on assault weapons this is true. I did not define specifics and as we have a rational debate about it, ideas should develop and be exchanged, some will be scrapped as we go but in the end we may actually have something that may be workable.
If you want to argue and twist words I will not participate as its a waste of time and one of the main reasons I no longer come to this site.
That and all the changes are pretty lame and make this more of a kitty cat site then one for adults.
I'm not sure how these words were twisted:
what else kills people that we should ban?
if you want to talk specific guns like assault rifles I am on board. If you want to talk crazy about making all guns illegal I am afraid I am not in agreement.
You certainly sound like you are in favor of a ban. I am merely pointing out that a ban whilst allowing for the banned weapons to exist makes no sense, which was the point Cuomo was making.
You use the 2nd Amendment as a shield anytime the issue of gun regulations is raised. Yet, above you are agreeing with reasonable restrictions on guns. Isn't that the point then? What constitutes a reasonable restriction?
I'm not suggesting that adding certain firearms to the assault weapon list is the answer. But when it is discussed and you're screaming that they are coming for your guns, it doesn't really make your concerns or argument seem very legitimate.
I'm sorry that you posted something that might be construed as not in tune with the far right. I'm sure you will be more careful next time.
Why would you make a ownership of a certain firearm illegal, yet allow for it to exist?
Going back to your post #38, would the allowance of a bazooka be grandfathered? Or allowing people to carry in schools?
It doesn't make sense to create a law based on a weapon's dangerousness, yet allow for it to be owned.
Why would you make a ownership of a certain firearm illegal, yet allow for it to exist?
Going back to your post #38, would the allowance of a bazooka be grandfathered? Or allowing people to carry in schools?
It doesn't make sense to create a law based on a weapon's dangerousness, yet allow for it to be owned.
that's what they did in '94 and from what i am reading, that is what feinstein's proposal does as well...they are grandfathered. Am i reading bad info??
that's what they did in '94 and from what i am reading, that is what feinstein's proposal does as well...they are grandfathered. Am i reading bad info??
They have done that before. I think it is illogical. Either the weapon is dangerous and should be off the streets completely or it isn't. If they want to simply stoip making them and selling them, its fine, but I don't know what that realistically does.
They have done that before. I think it is illogical. Either the weapon is dangerous and should be off the streets completely or it isn't. If they want to simply stoip making them and selling them, its fine, but I don't know what that realistically does.
other than setting a specific time period of when certain guns can't be imported/manufactued (last one had a sunset clause) i'm not so sure what it accomplishes either. This proposal goes after 100, the last one only went after 19. Maybe just another starting point for further restrictions, who knows.
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
