Home | About | Forums | Links | Contact | LR X-treme | Video | RSS
Daily e-mail updates from
Libertarian Republican.

Saturday, December 22, 2012

Top Democrat drops the dreaded 'C' word on guns

And it comes from someone generally regarded as more centrist

From Eric Dondero:

This is scary. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has been looked up by the right as one of a tiny handful of Democrats, that we Republicans might find acceptable. He's been relatively centrist on fiscal matters. But now he's become the first prominent Democrat to drop the dreaded 'C' word - confiscation.

From the NY Times, "Cuomo Says He’ll Outline Gun Proposal Next Month":
“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.”
Editor's comment - Yup, he's passed the rubion, so to speak. Jumped the shark. Entered the realm of no man's land. There really isn't any coming back on that one. No explaining away. If this guy ever runs for president, that single statement will act as a giant shit-stain on his record for liberty-loving Americans. As they say in Nuu Yahk... "So long pal. It's been nice knowing ya." (photo credit - myfirst100days.com)

32 comments:

The Right Guy said...

The apple doesn't fall far from the cesspool.

Erich Domdero said...

65% of Americans support a ban on assault weapons. He'll be fine.

Gary said...

Yes. And it is proof that 65% of Americans are fucking idiots.

Erich Domdero said...

Or you're out of touch and have marginalized yourselves.

Chuck said...

"Or you're out of touch and have marginalized yourselves."

What other civil rights do you vermin want eliminated, you dick-sucking ape?

Erich Domdero said...

Oh chuck. When will you learn to read?

Chuck said...

You're far too stupid to pretend at clever, ape.

What other civil rights do you oppose? How many other sections of the Bill of Rights do you animals want erased, ape?

Chuck said...

What kind of weapon isn't an "assault" one, you mouth-breathing fuck? Is there another kind, you fucking ape?

The Right Guy said...

The one in his pants.

KN@PPSTER said...

"65% of Americans support a ban on assault weapons."

And 25% of Americans HAVE weapons ("assault" is just a prefatory propaganda word).

Guess which side will win that argument if it comes down to brass tacks?

Erich Domdero said...

So now the people with guns get to force those without to do what they want? America!

And the constitution doesn't mention guns. You dummy.

The Right Guy said...

And you want to force us to do what you want by using the government and their guns. Communist!

Erich Domdero said...

So you're in favor of everyone volunteering which laws they'll acknowledge? I'm sure all the prisoners will be thrilled that they can go home now.

The Right Guy said...

The law is that we can own what you would like to call assault weapons, but that hasn't stopped O'Stymie from circumventing law with regulations and bureaucrats. The house isn't going to ban them and neither is the senate. That leaves executive orders and other bureaucratic bullshit. Obama can try it, but it won't work.

Erich Domdero said...

The constitution says that we have the right to bear arms. Arms include nuclear weapons. So let's let those scary Muslims that moved in down the street from Eric try and buy some! Let's see how he reacts.

The Right Guy said...

Nuclear weapons are ordinance and weapons of mass destruction, not firearms. Individuals can't own them as much as hoplophobes believe they can. Nice try from the template. It seems to be going around these days.

Chuck said...

"And the constitution doesn't mention guns. You dummy. "

Ape imagines. Then writes. Then writes again. Silly ape.

Chuck said...

Ordnance. No right to ordnance in the Constitution. Apes are unable to comprehend the difference between ordnance and arms, but what is to really be expected of an ape after all? To the ape, a firecracker is genocide. Fire BAD!

Chuck said...

"Guess which side will win that argument if it comes down to brass tacks?"

The US Army. These assholes who buy up rounds of ammo thinking they're going to "win" after shit meets fan haven't thought things through all that well.

Remember World War I? Remember it again. The US Military isn't going to be disbanded in the event of a Y2K or a Mexican doomsday prediction or even total fucking bedlam in the streets of every American city. They're as constant as constant gets. You think YOU have MREs? Guess what, motherfucker. They've got more.

Gold? Give me a fucking break. Gold? Just what the fuck is it worth to the starving? What is it worth to the man who'd rather have a gun? Nothing. Silver? What a fucking fantasy.

The Right Guy said...

Two things Chuck and ED:
One, there was no blogging, twitter, TV, Radio, morse code, facebook or linkedin when the constitution was written either. Two, I have to wonder if our military would side with BO or us? Shit, he basically disenfranchised them this last election and as good as they are, I don't think they would follow that order necessarily under certain circumstances. Again, we are painting with broad strokes and I'd like a scenario from tom and ED to clarify it. If it's confiscation, it's not an army issue. If BO used the Army for that, it would be a lot of trouble for him.

randian said...

Referencing nuclear weapons proves idiocy. If a nuclear weapon could be used without harming any but your target, then a nuclear weapon should indeed be protected under the 2A. Sadly, you can't take out just your rapist with a nuke.

These assholes who buy up rounds of ammo thinking they're going to "win" after shit meets fan haven't thought things through all that well.

You apparently haven't studied military history very well, because guerrilla movements are often very effective against armies. Usually that's because national governments prefer ruling over cities with taxpayers rather than tax-free rubble. If the army is willing to kill everybody and destroy everything, which they certainly have the capacity to do, then the guerrillas are doomed. Otherwise, the guerrillas have a fighting chance.

Chuck said...

" I have to wonder if our military would side with BO or us?"

You've created imaginary sides. Who is "us" when Americans are burning cities to the ground?

Protect, defend? Think.

The Right Guy said...

Who said cities would be burning to the ground? Not me.

Chuck said...

"You apparently haven't studied military history very well"

Are you fucking high?

How did the Civil War turn out, you hapless fuck?

Some of you fuckers make me ashamed I'm on your side. Can you think for fucksake? Holy shit.

Chuck said...

"Who said cities would be burning to the ground?"

The person who wrote the words.

The Right Guy said...

Wasn't me.

As far as the CW, the circumstances and geography were different. I don't see everyone with a gun handing them in, I just don't. If it does happen, then we are Farm Animals® just like Europeans.

randian said...

How did the Civil War turn out, you hapless fuck?

Exactly how does the Civil War demonstrate that guerrilla forces are ineffective against main armies?

Erich Domdero said...

For people that claim to love the constitution, you haven't actually read it. Because it doesn't say firearms either. It says arms. Neutron bombs are arms. Napalm is arms. Sarin gas is arms. However, none of those existed in 1787, so that not what the writers intended. Of course neither AR-15s and magazines of any kind, let alone extended magazines. Seriously, you guys are bad at this.

The Right Guy said...

Ah, late to the party again! I see you've read the template this morning. The first amendment doesn't mention TV or Radio either and neither does the 4th amendment mention abortion. The thing is, arms and ordinance are difference things and even back then people couldn't have cannons. Napalm is ordinance and sarin gas is a weapon of mass destruction. Now go back to your template hole where you came from.

Erich Domdero said...

That explains why they mentioned weapons of mass destruction in the last of the second amendment. Oh wait, no they didn't. Seriously, if you're going to try and use a literal interpretation of the document, try reading it first.

The Right Guy said...

The point is, they understood it better than you ever will. Changing the premise to WMDs and ordinance is feckless at best.

Erich Domdero said...

You either believe in the constitution or you don't. You don't.