Skip to comments.Gun Grabbing Legislation Sweeps Nation
Posted on 01/09/2013 7:28:54 AM PST by Nachum
Remember when the left pretended they liked the Second Amendment? Thats passé. Today, Democrats around the country are preparing for a big gun grab, the likes of which the Republic has never before seen. In New York, Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who has actually publicly pitched all-out gun confiscation (or alternatively, forced gun buybacks), is now preparing grandiose new legislation designed to strip New Yorkers of assault weapons, as well as restrict the size of magazines. In the only provision actually designed to reduce crime, Cuomo will also propose harsher penalties for using a gun in the commission of a crime.
Cuomo recognizes that whats hes doing is politically divisive. But in todays America, he also recognizes that hell be rewarded by the media for cramming down political divisive gun control, even if it does nothing to stop violence. Its a very divisive topic, said Cuomo. Theres a lot of energy on both sides. Some people are vehemently against, some people think were out of our minds for not passing it Gun control is highly political, politically contentious situation. It is polarizing.
Cuomo isnt the only New York politician stumping for gun confiscation. Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who dreams of the Nanny State, has now produced and distributed a new commercial for Mayors Against Gun Violence, showing the mother of a murder victim asking, How many more children must die before Washington does something to end our gun violence problem?
But the push for gun confiscation isnt limited to New York. In Iowa, State Rep. Dan Muhlbauer told a local newspaper, We cannot have big guns out here as far as the big guns that are out here, the semi-automatics and all of them.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
With the internet, it will make the gun laws flimmsy at best.
Cuomo is certainly his father’s son as he’s inherited his attributes:
He is a left-wing pig and he’s pig ugly!
Here’s another one:
Rep. Rhonda Fields to introduce 2 gun-control bills during state legislative session (Colorado)
“For the moment, the bills will be solely introduced by Democrats.”
The list, Ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
The veto-proof majority in the House and Senate that will result from all this is going to come in handy unwinding Obamacare.
places like MA, IL and those who live witjh in them need to get out, they;re lost socialist states, get your guns, your conservative views and get in a state which actually understands your rights.
Hell I;ve had it, let them have their socialist utopia up there, providing the loons down south are firced to move back north.
VA and the south, to most of the midwest and AK is the new country and they can have their cess pits.
Freedom of rleigion is being attacked, that right was why this country was founded.
Being told to accept homosexuals, turd poking marriage, men dressed as women, illegals, no immigration law, now the 2nd amendment is now under attack
First the 1st amendment by turd pokers under attack,
also media was supposed to do their job but they do not
now the 2nd amendment is under attack as well as the 10th
HEY REPUBLICANS GET A F-IN GRIP AND FIGHT FOR OUR RIGHTS AND STOP SUPPORTING NON RIGHTS AND SPECIAL LAWS FOR TURD POKERS, AND ILLEGALS
Coming right soon........................
>> HEY REPUBLICANS GET A F-IN GRIP AND FIGHT FOR OUR RIGHTS
It seems like Boehner and his buds are the offensive line for tyranny.
Guns and cars are the enemy of the left! Both empower the INDIVIDUAL, not the collectivity.
I would say “Yessssss [fistpump]” as every time they’ve ever messed with this issue it meant the electoral wilderness for them, but today’s voters did elect The Won. Twice. So it may be a “be careful what you wish for” moment.
Uh, guys, they are never EVER going to stop unless patriots stand up and yell “NO!”
I fear we are fighting amongst ourselves too much “You’re a RINO, no YOU are!” to stop Obamugabe.
Please, let’s recognize that all of our division, all of our anger at each other (Boehner, Huckabee, Gingrich, Romney, et al) is what the media and the liberals WANT.
Start focusing on DEMOCRATS.
I speak to myself, too.
It will freak you out.
There are so many “rights” in this country anymore, that people think gun rights are just like abortion rights, privacy rights, employment rights, etc. I don’t think most people understand the significance of an enumerated right in the Constitution.
627:4 Physical Force in Defense of a Person.
I. A person is justified in using non-deadly force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful, non-deadly force by such other person, and he may use a degree of such force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose. However, such force is not justifiable if:
(a) With a purpose to cause physical harm to another person, he provoked the use of unlawful, non-deadly force by such other person; or
(b) He was the initial aggressor, unless after such aggression he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so, but the latter notwithstanding continues the use or threat of unlawful, non-deadly force; or
(c) The force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not authorized by law.
II. A person is justified in using deadly force upon another person when he reasonably believes that such other person:
(a) Is about to use unlawful, deadly force against the actor or a third person;
(b) Is likely to use any unlawful force against a person present while committing or attempting to commit a burglary;
(c) Is committing or about to commit kidnapping or a forcible sex offense; or
(d) Is likely to use any unlawful force in the commission of a felony against the actor within such actor’s dwelling or its curtilage.
II-a. A person who responds to a threat which would be considered by a reasonable person as likely to cause serious bodily injury or death to the person or to another by displaying a firearm or other means of self-defense with the intent to warn away the person making the threat shall not have committed a criminal act.
III. A person is not justified in using deadly force on another to defend himself or herself or a third person from deadly force by the other if he or she knows that he or she and the third person can, with complete safety:
(a) Retreat from the encounter, except that he or she is not required to retreat if he or she is within his or her dwelling, its curtilage, or anywhere he or she has a right to be, and was not the initial aggressor; or
(b) Surrender property to a person asserting a claim of right thereto; or
(c) Comply with a demand that he or she abstain from performing an act which he or she is not obliged to perform; nor is the use of deadly force justifiable when, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, the person has provoked the use of force against himself or herself in the same encounter; or
(d) If he or she is a law enforcement officer or a private person assisting the officer at the officer’s direction and was acting pursuant to RSA 627:5, the person need not retreat.
100% preventable and 100% predictable..
Never let a good crisis go to waste.
Just think, if all those people standing in line for a chicken sandwich and more recently guns and ammo voted for a presidential candidate that wouldn’t do this versus sitting at home, this might not be as big a concern.
Staying at home and not voting or just casting a protest vote really showed them.
These know perfectly well what “Shall not be Infringed” means. They’re just betting that we’re firmly stuck in “...mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable....” mode, and not yet ready to move on to Jefferson’s next sentence concerning “new Guards for our future security”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.