Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(National Review)   Andrew Cuomo says what the left wasn't supposed to say in the gun-control conversation: "Confiscation could be an option"   ( nationalreview.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, Andrew Cuomo, John Albion Andrew, state legislators, assault weapons, Governor of New York, Swiss cheese, gun controls  
•       •       •

2570 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Dec 2012 at 8:56 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1063 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Newest

 
2012-12-23 04:57:33 AM  
That's how many times the NRO's pissed their pants today?

/cleanup on aisle 5
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-12-23 07:19:30 AM  
Good. I want to see the "law abiding gun owners" tell us about how they are going to go full Al Queda. It's funny because they don't have the balls, they never have.
 
2012-12-23 07:45:20 AM  

vpb: Good. I want to see the "law abiding gun owners" tell us about how they are going to go full Al Queda. It's funny because they don't have the balls, they never have.


Nobody has to go "full Al Queda," whatever that means. In states where there is no gun registration, we'll just go about our lives as we always have. In states where there is registration, people can just stash their guns, kick in their front doors, and call the cops to report a "robbery."
 
2012-12-23 08:11:29 AM  

DrPainMD: vpb: Good. I want to see the "law abiding gun owners" tell us about how they are going to go full Al Queda. It's funny because they don't have the balls, they never have.

Nobody has to go "full Al Queda," whatever that means. In states where there is no gun registration, we'll just go about our lives as we always have. In states where there is registration, people can just stash their guns, kick in their front doors, and call the cops to report a "robbery."


Or Mario is full of shiat. There will be no confiscation of legally owned guns. You will never find the political will to turn law abiding citizens into felons overnight. Even if you did it would be challenged before the ink is dry and a federal judge would issue an injunction.
 
2012-12-23 08:19:39 AM  

vpb: Good. I want to see the "law abiding gun owners" tell us about how they are going to go full Al Queda. It's funny because they don't have the balls, they never have.


You must have missed those whole "American Revolution" and "Civil War" episodes of our history.
 
2012-12-23 08:27:13 AM  

unamused: vpb: Good. I want to see the "law abiding gun owners" tell us about how they are going to go full Al Queda. It's funny because they don't have the balls, they never have.

You must have missed those whole "American Revolution" and "Civil War" episodes of our history.


I'd like to see how a guy with an AR-15 would do up against an M1A2 Abrams tank with depleted uranium mesh armor.
 
2012-12-23 08:53:12 AM  

unamused: vpb: Good. I want to see the "law abiding gun owners" tell us about how they are going to go full Al Queda. It's funny because they don't have the balls, they never have.

You must have missed those whole "American Revolution" and "Civil War" episodes of our history.


Just exactly how did that civil war thing turn out, after all?
 
2012-12-23 08:55:14 AM  

Dinki: Just exactly how did that civil war thing turn out, after all?


The side with more guns won.
 
2012-12-23 08:55:55 AM  

Dinki: unamused: vpb: Good. I want to see the "law abiding gun owners" tell us about how they are going to go full Al Queda. It's funny because they don't have the balls, they never have.

You must have missed those whole "American Revolution" and "Civil War" episodes of our history.

Just exactly how did that civil war thing turn out, after all?


The rednecks got their asses kicked.

Considering how uppity they've been getting lately, they're overdue for an invasion. The sooner we force them to put beans in their chili, the better.
 
2012-12-23 08:56:41 AM  

unamused: vpb: Good. I want to see the "law abiding gun owners" tell us about how they are going to go full Al Queda. It's funny because they don't have the balls, they never have.

You must have missed those whole "American Revolution" and "Civil War" episodes of our history.


Both of which were largely fought by official troops using government issued weapons. Not Real Americans with their personal arsenal.
 
2012-12-23 09:03:56 AM  
I'm sure NRO has a very long list of words that they don't want anyone to say, because they want to limit thoughts as well.

But they have no power.
 
2012-12-23 09:06:13 AM  

GAT_00: unamused: vpb: Good. I want to see the "law abiding gun owners" tell us about how they are going to go full Al Queda. It's funny because they don't have the balls, they never have.

You must have missed those whole "American Revolution" and "Civil War" episodes of our history.

Both of which were largely fought by official troops using government issued weapons. Not Real Americans with their personal arsenal.


True. What we really want to look at is the results of the Whisky Rebellion.

Anyway. The gun addicts should take this as a warning, if they want to make it easy for madmen to get the most firepower they can physically carry they will lose everything.
 
2012-12-23 09:06:26 AM  
Okay. Let's say that last week, the Connecticut shooter just went to the school and beat the shiat out of the principal. He's arrested, and they determine after a psychological evaluation that he has extremely violent tendencies and is basically a ticking time bomb. Now we can't keep him in jail forever for simple assault, so we're going to have to release him. Isn't it a good idea to examine his home life? And when we find out he's got an arsenal of weapons, shouldn't someone do something about that?
 
2012-12-23 09:06:35 AM  
I don't actually support confiscation of registered weapons, buuuut...

You know you're lying when you say you want guns as a protection against an overbearing government. You're never, ever going to go to war with the government. It's a fantasy. You want a legal reason to kill if you get angry about the world around you, that's what you want.
 
2012-12-23 09:06:57 AM  
RexTalionis: I'd like to see how a guy with an AR-15 would do up against an M1A2 Abrams tank with depleted uranium mesh armor.

Oh yeah? Well what about two or even three guys with AR-15s? Not so funny now, is it?
/yeah, it sort of is
 
2012-12-23 09:07:47 AM  
The only meaningful confiscation/ban is for all semi-automatic weapons of any kind, including double-action revolvers.
 
2012-12-23 09:08:03 AM  
Is he trying to piss away his chance for the presidency in 2016 already?

This is the first hard ammunition the GOP has on him. They will spend the next 4 years branding him as a bigger gun control advocate than James Brady and Michael Bloomberg combined. By the time they're done people will think his number one goal is to sneak into every American's house at night and steal their guns wile laughing manically.
 
2012-12-23 09:09:36 AM  

Saborlas: Dinki: unamused: vpb: Good. I want to see the "law abiding gun owners" tell us about how they are going to go full Al Queda. It's funny because they don't have the balls, they never have.

You must have missed those whole "American Revolution" and "Civil War" episodes of our history.

Just exactly how did that civil war thing turn out, after all?

The rednecks got their asses kicked.

Considering how uppity they've been getting lately, they're overdue for an invasion. The sooner we force them to put beans in their chili, the better.


You trying to kick off the civil war lectric boogaboo? You will only get my beanless chili from my cold dead hands
 
2012-12-23 09:09:38 AM  

sammyk:
Or Mario is full of shiat. There will be no confiscation of legally owned guns. You will never find the political will to turn law abiding citizens into felons overnight. Even if you did it would be challenged before the ink is dry and a federal judge would issue an injunction.


Well, if you think about it... if marijuana is being legalized, they need to find another crime to put people into privately-owned prisons for the cheap labor. And really, who is the average person more afraid up - someone high on pot, or someone with a gun?
 
2012-12-23 09:11:49 AM  

LasersHurt: I don't actually support confiscation of registered weapons, buuuut...

You know you're lying when you say you want guns as a protection against an overbearing government. You're never, ever going to go to war with the government. It's a fantasy. You want a legal reason to kill if you get angry about the world around you, that's what you want.


It's the sole reason for the second amendment.  It's not there for hunting, it's not there for self-defense.  (Of course, the 9th amendment says that you can't use that as proof you DON'T have a right to a gun for hunting or self-defense.)
 
2012-12-23 09:11:58 AM  

R.A.Danny: Dinki: Just exactly how did that civil war thing turn out, after all?

The side with more guns won.


i1123.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-23 09:12:48 AM  

vygramul: LasersHurt: I don't actually support confiscation of registered weapons, buuuut...

You know you're lying when you say you want guns as a protection against an overbearing government. You're never, ever going to go to war with the government. It's a fantasy. You want a legal reason to kill if you get angry about the world around you, that's what you want.

It's the sole reason for the second amendment.  It's not there for hunting, it's not there for self-defense.  (Of course, the 9th amendment says that you can't use that as proof you DON'T have a right to a gun for hunting or self-defense.)


I know, I get it. I don't lack understanding of what it says on paper. I just disagree with the fantasy (I disagree with most of the fantasy surrounding guns).
 
2012-12-23 09:13:35 AM  
That's going way too far. It'll do more harm than good.

Even speaking of such a thing isn't a good idea, it'll make stupid and crazy people even stupider and crazier.
 
2012-12-23 09:14:35 AM  
Oh good.
Level headed talk like that will surely help the conversation along and let reason prevail...

/or you could threaten a hundred million angry gun owners, that works too.
 
2012-12-23 09:15:04 AM  
The NRA has beeen warning Americans now for 5 years about Obama wanting to take our guns away. It is looking more and more like they were correct.
 
2012-12-23 09:15:28 AM  

LasersHurt: vygramul: LasersHurt: I don't actually support confiscation of registered weapons, buuuut...

You know you're lying when you say you want guns as a protection against an overbearing government. You're never, ever going to go to war with the government. It's a fantasy. You want a legal reason to kill if you get angry about the world around you, that's what you want.

It's the sole reason for the second amendment.  It's not there for hunting, it's not there for self-defense.  (Of course, the 9th amendment says that you can't use that as proof you DON'T have a right to a gun for hunting or self-defense.)

I know, I get it. I don't lack understanding of what it says on paper. I just disagree with the fantasy (I disagree with most of the fantasy surrounding guns).


I'm sure they see themselves as a new Army of Northern Virginia.  But you have to admit, plenty of people around the world are willing to fight the American government with whatever is at hand.
 
2012-12-23 09:16:32 AM  
I see nothing wrong with buy-backs rather than confiscation.

Combine the buy-backs with a complete ban on hand-guns and rifles, and make the possession of banned guns punishable as a felony.

Use a gun in the commission of a crime? 25 years.

Kill someone with a gun? 25 years, no parole.

Buy-backs and bans aren't meant to fix the problem immediately, but over a considerable period of time. We're simply too saturated with guns for any measure to work immediately.

Hunting rifles? Fine. Single-shot only, no semi or full automatic options, though.

I've been an opponent of gun control for most of my 40 years. But, Sandy Hook is too much. Enough dead kids.

If you want to keep your guns, too bad. We, as a society, have shown that we're not mature enough to be trusted with such open access to weaponry like that. We scream about our rights and completely ignore our responsibilities.

Someone once said that the 2nd Amendment folks won the war over gun control and the occasional civilian massacre is the price the rest of us have to pay for it, over and over again. He was right at the time, but I really think this is the tipping point.

No more dead kids.
 
2012-12-23 09:17:20 AM  
Just as a relevant aside, I think the gun nuts are already talking 2nd amendment solutions at the highest levels of power.

Let's take for instance the lovely infographic I saw on Facebook yesterday. It was a picture of Obama walking down a crowded street with about 20 Secret Service agents near him. The caption read something like: "Obama wants gun free zones. Maybe he should be in a gun free zone." And then there was an arrow pointing to the gun at each Secret Service agent's side.

You could read this a lot of ways:

That gun nuts think that 20 young kids are just as valuable a target typically as the President and that this is one of their better analogies when in fact it's one of their worst.
That gun nuts don't want the President to have protection because it would, in the end, put an end to their paranoia if say Joe Biden were president.
That gun nuts enjoy being butthurt and use Facebook as their constant outlet of said emotion.

Gun Nuts - convincing no one but other Gun Nuts on Facebook that you have a leg to stand on.
 
2012-12-23 09:19:16 AM  
With that statement Cuomo will NEVER be president. I'm not a gun owner (my temper gets way too hot too quick), but I support the right of people to have any sort of gun they want. The real problem I theses we with these crazies is that they needed mental health treatment and never got it.

/would never support a person who wants to confiscate anything wholesale.
 
2012-12-23 09:19:40 AM  

way south: Oh good.
Level headed talk like that will surely help the conversation along and let reason prevail...

/or you could threaten a hundred million angry gun owners, that works too.


Offering an extreme option so something actually happens is actually helping the conversation. Now I can point to the assault weapons ban as a moderate solution.

And if you feel threatened or angry, those are your own problems. Don't dump them on everyone else. After all, this is about reason, not emotion, right?
 
2012-12-23 09:22:33 AM  
Wayne LaPierre is on MTP right now screaming about Dianne Feinstein and Washington Based Media Elites.
 
2012-12-23 09:23:24 AM  

bluenovaman: With that statement Cuomo will NEVER be president. I'm not a gun owner (my temper gets way too hot too quick), but I support the right of people to have any sort of gun they want.


I want the Navy's rail gun. I should be allowed to have it. It's in the Constitution!
www.ohgizmo.com
 
2012-12-23 09:23:42 AM  
To: neverdem

This has nothing to do with crime. That's proven by the history of where they have implemented strict gun-control laws; violent crime goes up! They also know the last AWB had no positive effect at all, it did nothing it was supposed to do.

So then we are left with why do they want to disarm millions of Americans? Not one democrat has ever refuted or rebuffed Bill Ayers call for killing 25 million Americans. They almost worship the murderous Stalin, Chavez, China, Russia, et al. Not one of them ever says they condemn the mass murders they have done.

Since they have no legitimate reason for their gun control arguments and they have a history of supporting the murderers of political dissidents it follows their reason for this push is to make it hard for us to fight back so as to make it easy for them to round up, kill or imprison people like me.

50 posted on Saturday, December 22, 2012 10:42:51 AM by Mechanicos (When did we amend the Constitution for a 2nd Federal Prohibition?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
 
2012-12-23 09:23:48 AM  

Komplex: Whisky Rebellion


Want to piss off a survivalist gun nut? Remind them that the first time in US history that their types tried to initiate an armed insurrection, GEORGE WASHINGTON himself personally came out of military retirement to lead a force to kick their asses and put them in their place.

Good times.
 
2012-12-23 09:23:55 AM  

RexTalionis: I'd like to see how a guy with an AR-15 would do up against an M1A2 Abrams tank with depleted uranium mesh armor.


Yeah, because professional military forces have never gotten their asses handed to them by local guerrillas. There's been no conflict in the last 50 years where the locals weren't just run over in a matter of days.
 
2012-12-23 09:25:07 AM  

Jake Havechek: To: neverdem

This has nothing to do with crime. That's proven by the history of where they have implemented strict gun-control laws; violent crime goes up! They also know the last AWB had no positive effect at all, it did nothing it was supposed to do.

So then we are left with why do they want to disarm millions of Americans? Not one democrat has ever refuted or rebuffed Bill Ayers call for killing 25 million Americans. They almost worship the murderous Stalin, Chavez, China, Russia, et al. Not one of them ever says they condemn the mass murders they have done.

Since they have no legitimate reason for their gun control arguments and they have a history of supporting the murderers of political dissidents it follows their reason for this push is to make it hard for us to fight back so as to make it easy for them to round up, kill or imprison people like me.

50 posted on Saturday, December 22, 2012 10:42:51 AM by Mechanicos (When did we amend the Constitution for a 2nd Federal Prohibition?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


They want the power to kill because they're afraid of being killed.

Sounds well balanced, let's arm them.
 
2012-12-23 09:25:21 AM  

the_vegetarian_cannibal: Komplex: Whisky Rebellion

Want to piss off a survivalist gun nut? Remind them that the first time in US history that their types tried to initiate an armed insurrection, GEORGE WASHINGTON himself personally came out of military retirement to lead a force to kick their asses and put them in their place.

Good times.


Be sure to mention how they all ran away and hid before he got into town.
 
2012-12-23 09:25:34 AM  
Good luck. At least 6 very vulnerable blue politicians in deep red states are up for re-election. You lose it all if you try.

We can still exercise our franchise, and you just about guarantee President Santorum or some equally uncompromising far right winger if you decide you want to touch this issue.
 
2012-12-23 09:27:05 AM  

LasersHurt: Jake Havechek: To: neverdem

This has nothing to do with crime. That's proven by the history of where they have implemented strict gun-control laws; violent crime goes up! They also know the last AWB had no positive effect at all, it did nothing it was supposed to do.

So then we are left with why do they want to disarm millions of Americans? Not one democrat has ever refuted or rebuffed Bill Ayers call for killing 25 million Americans. They almost worship the murderous Stalin, Chavez, China, Russia, et al. Not one of them ever says they condemn the mass murders they have done.

Since they have no legitimate reason for their gun control arguments and they have a history of supporting the murderers of political dissidents it follows their reason for this push is to make it hard for us to fight back so as to make it easy for them to round up, kill or imprison people like me.

50 posted on Saturday, December 22, 2012 10:42:51 AM by Mechanicos (When did we amend the Constitution for a 2nd Federal Prohibition?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

They want the power to kill because they're afraid of being killed.

Sounds well balanced, let's arm them.


Oh, it's a ball over there. Between the gun control stuff, and the freeps are split on whether La Pierre is a shiathead or not, it's scarily amusing.
 
2012-12-23 09:27:07 AM  

MFAWG: Wayne LaPierre is on MTP right now screaming about Dianne Feinstein and Washington Based Media Elites.


upload.wikimedia.org

/seriously, what's this guy's damage?
 
2012-12-23 09:27:16 AM  

RexTalionis: bluenovaman: With that statement Cuomo will NEVER be president. I'm not a gun owner (my temper gets way too hot too quick), but I support the right of people to have any sort of gun they want.

I want the Navy's rail gun. I should be allowed to have it. It's in the Constitution!
[www.ohgizmo.com image 500x407]


Making it legal to own would probably not change how many individuals currently own one.
 
2012-12-23 09:27:32 AM  
This whole thing is stupid. There is a pretty easy solution to all of this that lets people keep their guns. Get rid of high capacity magazines, 10 rounds should be enough. Make firearm registrations mandatory to own any type of firearm, with a 6 month evaluation period before you are approved.. With the registration include a mandatory fee, something substantial, but not over whelming, I'm thinking $500. Also make the following required to get a registration card, firearms training classes, full criminal background checks, and full mental health screenings. Make it so that if you don't pass the mental health screening or background check, or don't complete the training classes within the 6 month evaluation period, you will be refused a registration and cannot apply again for 5 years. And make people re register, going through the same process, every 5 years, but charge $250 re licensing fee.
 
2012-12-23 09:27:38 AM  

vygramul: LasersHurt: I don't actually support confiscation of registered weapons, buuuut...

You know you're lying when you say you want guns as a protection against an overbearing government. You're never, ever going to go to war with the government. It's a fantasy. You want a legal reason to kill if you get angry about the world around you, that's what you want.

It's the sole reason for the second amendment.  It's not there for hunting, it's not there for self-defense.  (Of course, the 9th amendment says that you can't use that as proof you DON'T have a right to a gun for hunting or self-defense.)


No it is not.

head-wall.gif

It is there because we had no standing army at the time and required all able bodied males to be able to take up arms to defend their states and the nation.

This 'protect us from the ebil gub'min't 2nd amendment is a latter-day fantasy.
 
2012-12-23 09:28:27 AM  

the_vegetarian_cannibal: MFAWG: Wayne LaPierre is on MTP right now screaming about Dianne Feinstein and Washington Based Media Elites.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x200]

/seriously, what's this guy's damage?


It's really an issue of presentation, isn't it?

He's a farking disaster.
 
2012-12-23 09:29:28 AM  

Jake Havechek: To: neverdem

This has nothing to do with crime. That's proven by the history of where they have implemented strict gun-control laws; violent crime goes up! They also know the last AWB had no positive effect at all, it did nothing it was supposed to do.

So then we are left with why do they want to disarm millions of Americans? Not one democrat has ever refuted or rebuffed Bill Ayers call for killing 25 million Americans. They almost worship the murderous Stalin, Chavez, China, Russia, et al. Not one of them ever says they condemn the mass murders they have done.

Since they have no legitimate reason for their gun control arguments and they have a history of supporting the murderers of political dissidents it follows their reason for this push is to make it hard for us to fight back so as to make it easy for them to round up, kill or imprison people like me.

50 posted on Saturday, December 22, 2012 10:42:51 AM by Mechanicos (When did we amend the Constitution for a 2nd Federal Prohibition?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

 
2012-12-23 09:29:30 AM  
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Chuck Schumer says that LaPierre is the biggest ally gun control advocates have right now..
 
2012-12-23 09:30:09 AM  

RexTalionis: unamused: vpb: Good. I want to see the "law abiding gun owners" tell us about how they are going to go full Al Queda. It's funny because they don't have the balls, they never have.

You must have missed those whole "American Revolution" and "Civil War" episodes of our history.

I'd like to see how a guy with an AR-15 would do up against an M1A2 Abrams tank with depleted uranium mesh armor.


I imagine quite poorly. I don't think M1A2 Abrams tanks are allowed to run for public office though.
 
2012-12-23 09:30:39 AM  

RexTalionis: unamused: vpb: Good. I want to see the "law abiding gun owners" tell us about how they are going to go full Al Queda. It's funny because they don't have the balls, they never have.

You must have missed those whole "American Revolution" and "Civil War" episodes of our history.

I'd like to see how a guy with an AR-15 would do up against an M1A2 Abrams tank with depleted uranium mesh armor.


Yeah! I mean that tanker never has to maintain that tank. They don't spend 80% of their time outside it working on the damn thing after all. Once again you confuse the hardware with the only thing that makes it dangerous, the people operating it.
 
2012-12-23 09:31:36 AM  

joe714: RexTalionis: I'd like to see how a guy with an AR-15 would do up against an M1A2 Abrams tank with depleted uranium mesh armor.

Yeah, because professional military forces have never gotten their asses handed to them by local guerrillas. There's been no conflict in the last 50 years where the locals weren't just run over in a matter of days.


This isn't Red Dawn and none of them are heroes.

Most likely scenario in the case of a gun ban:

Guns are banned. Government offers to buy back any such designated weapons at full market cost. Gun makers are limited to the manufacturing and selling of hunting rifles.

Some gun owners comply and sell back their illegal guns. The rest hide them and talk loud shiat but do next to nothing. A few wackjobs get killed by government forces when they come to take verified stores of illegal weapons.

Lots of loud talk, but nothing happens. Over a period of 50 years, the existing guns slowly get removed from the system or break down due to time and non-use.

The number of gun deaths plummets. Society as a whole is safer.

No NWO armies invade. The Anti-Christ does not appear. Strange foreign people who talk funny do not overrun the rural regions and force everyone to talk like they do.

The world continues, but with far fewer deaths due to guns.
 
2012-12-23 09:32:09 AM  

joe714: RexTalionis: I'd like to see how a guy with an AR-15 would do up against an M1A2 Abrams tank with depleted uranium mesh armor.

Yeah, because professional military forces have never gotten their asses handed to them by local guerrillas. There's been no conflict in the last 50 years where the locals weren't just run over in a matter of days.


Fighting in the jungle or desert where supplies are limited and the terrain is to difficult to traverse on mechanized armor is different from fighting a war in the US, where the entire country is paved.
 
Displayed 50 of 1063 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Newest


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report