Cuomo Goes A Little Bit Too Far!

[Punch The Clown]

Excerpt from gov. cuomo's new gun control initiative. This is a bit much. Sounds like Nazi Germany.

Creating A Toll-Free Gun Tip Line: Individuals in communities with persistently high rates of gun violence will now have access to a dedicated hotline to report illegal guns. The Governor announced today the launching of a toll-free number 1-855-GUNS-NYS (486-7697) that will provide follow-up on caller information regarding the location of an illegal gun. Rewards will be determined based on the value of the lead.

[Rick B]

I guess illegal is the key and if your guns are legal there isn't a thing they can do. It is a shame it is the start to try and stop violence and I have noticed allot of the Dems are using terms like Illeagal where they used to say Guns only beofre. Maybe they got the hint. Rick B

[Prince Humperdink]

Stu,You are very right about the comparison to Nazi Germany,One of Their biggest networks was neighbors encouraged to spy on Neighbors.I see the New gestapo is "coming out swinging"!

[Punch The Clown]

Rick, they did crap like this before. NYC has it's own assault weapon ban. When it was put into place people were given amnesty and allowed to register their assault weapons. That registration became a confiscation list. I would bet that for every registered gun in NYC there are three or four un-registered in the hands of who would otherwise be law abiding citizens.

[KnickKnack]

Remember when the Obama administration did this over the Healthcare Bill? The White House website encouraged people to let them know of anyone that was spreading "misinformation" about the Bill so that they could "correct" it.

The comparisons of how the Nazis slowly took over Germany in the 1930's and how the Left are operating today are uncanny. Most of the "misinformation" is coming from the Left too in an cooridnated effort to smear the Right.

[timshufflin]

Remember when the Obama administration did this over the Healthcare Bill? The White House website encouraged people to let them know of anyone that was spreading "misinformation" about the Bill so that they could "correct" it.

The comparisons of how the Nazis slowly took over Germany in the 1930's and how the Left are operating today are uncanny. Most of the "misinformation" is coming from the Left too in an cooridnated effort to smear the Right.


Being "left" means encouraging less freedom. Being right means encouraging more freedom. Germany was left wing just as redistributing income to support someone else's parents is also left wing. Whenever freedoms are taken, you have a left wing scenario.

[KnickKnack]

Being "left" means encouraging less freedom. Being right means encouraging more freedom. Germany was left wing just as redistributing income to support someone else's parents is also left wing. Whenever freedoms are taken, you have a left wing scenario.

Let me see if I can explain this just one more time. I'm pretty sure you're still not gonna get it, because we had this talk before, but here goes.

Your grandparents have lived for years on their own farm. They have done very well, selling milk and eggs. Now they are in their 80's and not getting around so well. One night, the barn catches fire, the fire spreads to the house and the farm is lost. Your grandparents, being the smart people that they are, planned ahead, are fully insured and have put away enough money to rebuild. However, it will take time to clear the debris, start construction and get them back into a house. The neighbors love your grandparents and feel bad that it will take so long to get them back home. Soooooo, the neighbors all have a meeting, decide on an amount of money that each of them can afford, use the money to buy material and supplies, then donate their time to come together to build a new house in record time to get your grandparents back on the farm. No one forced the Neighbors to do this. They decided, on their own, as Free Men, to do this for your grandparents, not expecting any reward or benefit other than feeling good about helping.

Now, if we were a Left country, with less Freedoms, wouldn't it follow that these neighbors would not be able to do this for your grandparents? Under that same logic, if we are a Right country, doesn't this give the neighbors the Freedom to think for themselves and do what they feel is best, not only for your grandparents, but for the community as a whole, since rebuilding gets the milk and eggs back on their tables? Can you say there is really no benefit to the neighbors by helping someone else in need?

I think the problem is that you are looking at each of these events as purely Socialist or purely Communist, without recognizing that in a truly Free Society, men have the ability to pick and choose what elements of other Societies are beneficial to them and are Free to implement them as they see fit and not impose them on a broad basis. In a Free Society, men learn from their successes and failures and build upon those, without being pressured by their Governments to go in one direction. Sometimes Free men must recognize that they cannot always move forward as an island and will need some outside help to succeed. Isolationists will fail to achieve many of their goals and eventually lose Freedom because they do not recognize that they should accept help when they need it the most, and give help when it will benefit them in the end.

[KnickKnack]

Back to the Cuomo gun control issue.

What the people pushing these gun "buy back" programs fail to recognize is that they are creating more crime. The kid that wants the $25 gift certificate or the free sneakers is gonna go steal a legal gun and turn it in just to get his "reward". Also, what's to stop Little Johnny from calling the Hot Line and saying that he saw a gun at his friend's house and thinks it is illegal? Will we now have the police knocking on everyone's door and asking to inspect their gun cabinet?

Up to this point, I thought that Cuomo was actually doing a decent job, turning things around with the Public Employee Unions and the Teacher's Unions. He's made some inroads with making Teachers accountable. I hope that he isn't slipping back into the mold of his father.

[Punch The Clown]

KK, I thought so too. Cuomo is having a brawl with the democrats about shutting down some ballistics data base that to date cost the taxpayers $44,000,000 and did not help to solve one crime. The fact that the technology doesn't work is irrelevant to the dems.

[timshufflin]

Let me see if I can explain this just one more time. I'm pretty sure you're still not gonna get it, because we had this talk before, but here goes.

Your grandparents have lived for years on their own farm. They have done very well, selling milk and eggs. Now they are in their 80's and not getting around so well. One night, the barn catches fire, the fire spreads to the house and the farm is lost. Your grandparents, being the smart people that they are, planned ahead, are fully insured and have put away enough money to rebuild. However, it will take time to clear the debris, start construction and get them back into a house. The neighbors love your grandparents and feel bad that it will take so long to get them back home. Soooooo, the neighbors all have a meeting, decide on an amount of money that each of them can afford, use the money to buy material and supplies, then donate their time to come together to build a new house in record time to get your grandparents back on the farm. No one forced the Neighbors to do this. They decided, on their own, as Free Men, to do this for your grandparents, not expecting any reward or benefit other than feeling good about helping.

Now, if we were a Left country, with less Freedoms, wouldn't it follow that these neighbors would not be able to do this for your grandparents? Under that same logic, if we are a Right country, doesn't this give the neighbors the Freedom to think for themselves and do what they feel is best, not only for your grandparents, but for the community as a whole, since rebuilding gets the milk and eggs back on their tables? Can you say there is really no benefit to the neighbors by helping someone else in need?

I think the problem is that you are looking at each of these events as purely Socialist or purely Communist, without recognizing that in a truly Free Society, men have the ability to pick and choose what elements of other Societies are beneficial to them and are Free to implement them as they see fit and not impose them on a broad basis. In a Free Society, men learn from their successes and failures and build upon those, without being pressured by their Governments to go in one direction. Sometimes Free men must recognize that they cannot always move forward as an island and will need some outside help to succeed. Isolationists will fail to achieve many of their goals and eventually lose Freedom because they do not recognize that they should accept help when they need it the most, and give help when it will benefit them in the end.

As long as the folks "came together freely" and "gave freely" I'm all aboard. If ANYONE compelled anyone to send money, it is simply WRONG.

[Rick B]

Even Liberal Canada has woken up a bit. Rick B


http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/02/15/conservatives-and-enthusiasts-cheer-the-end-of-the-long-gun-registry/

[KnickKnack]

As long as the folks "came together freely" and "gave freely" I'm all aboard. If ANYONE compelled anyone to send money, it is simply WRONG.

That is exactly what I have been trying to say all along. Geesh.

[timshufflin]

That is exactly what I have been trying to say all along. Geesh.


NO it is not! You have been saying that people can vote to force another person to contribute. That is not the same, at all, as freely giving. We have a constitution in this country and just because people vote something up or down does NOT mean that it should be legal. It must pass constitutional muster. social security, thieving from the young, does NOT pass this muster.

It is enough that we expect our young to die for every little friggin police action we can dream up to get the latest president re-elected, but to also expect them to pay for those who will not pay for themselves in their old age is ludicrous.

Look in the mirror KK, would you tell your son that you are just going to take $500 a month of his money for yourself and that he should just have his kids do the same, no biggy? Only a thieving coward of a parent would tell their children this. This is exactly what this country has become, thieving cowards.

I have no flipping idea how parents can look in a mirror and knowingly enslave their children to take care of them because the parent will not prepare to take care of themselves. Flipping unbelievable.

[KnickKnack]

NO it is not! You have been saying that people can vote to force another person to contribute. That is not the same, at all, as freely giving. We have a constitution in this country and just because people vote something up or down does NOT mean that it should be legal. It must pass constitutional muster. social security, thieving from the young, does NOT pass this muster.

It is enough that we expect our young to die for every little friggin police action we can dream up to get the latest president re-elected, but to also expect them to pay for those who will not pay for themselves in their old age is ludicrous.

Look in the mirror KK, would you tell your son that you are just going to take $500 a month of his money for yourself and that he should just have his kids do the same, no biggy? Only a thieving coward of a parent would tell their children this. This is exactly what this country has become, thieving cowards.

I have no flipping idea how parents can look in a mirror and knowingly enslave their children to take care of them because the parent will not prepare to take care of themselves. Flipping unbelievable.

You are saying that all votes taken should have 100% agreement, or the vote doesn't pass? If 99% of the population decides that something is beneficial to them and 1% says no, then the 99% lose out? Really?

Or, are you saying that 99% can agree that spending their money on a given project is beneficial to all, but if 1% don't think it is, even though it will benefit them, the 1% don't have to pay?

Dosen't that make the 1% freeloaders, living off the other 99%? Or does that make the 1% the dictators, forcing the other 99% to pay their share?

I think we are back to isolationism, where each person decides for themselves what is good for them and their is no collective thought. So in front of my house I want a dirt road. My neighbor next door wants a paved road. The guy on the other side of him wants a gravel road. And my other neighbor on the other side of me wants grass. Every 75 feet the road changes? And for 75 feet there is no road at all?

Come to think of it, some of the sidewalks here are like that. The sidewalk just ends in the middle of the street and pedestrians have to walk on the lawn in the summer and out into the street when there are snow banks. I guess that is what you are talking about. Which makes absolutely no sense to me.

[Punch The Clown]

The concept of people in a society being mandated to take care of the poor and the infirm is not new. I recall reading that thousands of years ago- I believe it was in the Talmud-there were very specific laws dealing with the subject. The difference between then and now was that the sick and infirm were not living a better lifestyle than the people that supported them. That is the fault of the liberals who cultivated the recipients into a political special interest group. On my job I see these parasites on a regular basis, living large while collecting ssdi, foodstamps, welfare, medicaid, section 8 housing, and a plethora of govt. giveaways including free internet, tv and phone service-both landline and mobile, transportation all secondary to a trumped up on the job injury. I refer to this as the "Platinum Package". However, if you aren't that ambitious and are too lazy to get a job-albeit for a short period of time-, fake injury, go to physical therapy and charlatan orthopaedists and secure the services of a free shyster comp lawyer, you can still qualify for the "Gold Package" just by refusing to work. These are the benefits that should be eliminated. I find these much more offensive than giving some home bound elderly free prepared meals.
As far as the pre-social security days and dating back to the times of The Founding Fathers, we must have done a terrific job of cleaning up the mess as I haven't seen one painting or read any literature on the elderly death camps and mass graves for those incapable of feeding themselves. I personally believe that as a Judaeo-Christian society even in the day of the Free Men there was a system in place to aid the poor while keeping the "stealing" down to a minimum.

[canes7]

Where the hell is the 800 number to turn in asshole politicians? That phone would ring off the hook day and night!

[KnickKnack]

The concept of people in a society being mandated to take care of the poor and the infirm is not new. I recall reading that thousands of years ago- I believe it was in the Talmud-there were very specific laws dealing with the subject. The difference between then and now was that the sick and infirm were not living a better lifestyle than the people that supported them. That is the fault of the liberals who cultivated the recipients into a political special interest group. On my job I see these parasites on a regular basis, living large while collecting ssdi, foodstamps, welfare, medicaid, section 8 housing, and a plethora of govt. giveaways including free internet, tv and phone service-both landline and mobile, transportation all secondary to a trumped up on the job injury. I refer to this as the "Platinum Package". However, if you aren't that ambitious and are too lazy to get a job-albeit for a short period of time-, fake injury, go to physical therapy and charlatan orthopaedists and secure the services of a free shyster comp lawyer, you can still qualify for the "Gold Package" just by refusing to work. These are the benefits that should be eliminated. I find these much more offensive than giving some home bound elderly free prepared meals.
As far as the pre-social security days and dating back to the times of The Founding Fathers, we must have done a terrific job of cleaning up the mess as I haven't seen one painting or read any literature on the elderly death camps and mass graves for those incapable of feeding themselves. I personally believe that as a Judaeo-Christian society even in the day of the Free Men there was a system in place to aid the poor while keeping the "stealing" down to a minimum.

I agree 100% that the welfare system is a huge scam now and far out of control.

As to your other point about what we did before the system, you have missed a few key points:

1. Our populations were much smaller and until the Industrial Revolution were not so concentrated into confined cities.

2. The belief in the Family Unit was much stronger, with most families caring for their own at home. The concepts of single parenthood were almost unheard of. If one family could not manage to raise their children or care for the elderly, there were relatives, such as aunts and uncles, or other families that would take them in. Look up the stories of how children were sent away on trains to better families during the Depression and the Dust Bowl.

3. The life expectancy was much shorter. Even when Social Security was first introduced it was not expected that most people would live into their 80's and 90's. In Colonial Days, if you made it to 50 you were an old man.

Not saying that I believe in any social programs that take money forcibly from one group and give to others who never worked a day in their lives for it. I just don't believe it's right to not take care of the elderly who did work their whole lives and for whatever reason cannot manage on their own now.

[timshufflin]

I agree 100% that the welfare system is a huge scam now and far out of control.

As to your other point about what we did before the system, you have missed a few key points:

1. Our populations were much smaller and until the Industrial Revolution were not so concentrated into confined cities.

2. The belief in the Family Unit was much stronger, with most families caring for their own at home. The concepts of single parenthood were almost unheard of. If one family could not manage to raise their children or care for the elderly, there were relatives, such as aunts and uncles, or other families that would take them in. Look up the stories of how children were sent away on trains to better families during the Depression and the Dust Bowl.

3. The life expectancy was much shorter. Even when Social Security was first introduced it was not expected that most people would live into their 80's and 90's. In Colonial Days, if you made it to 50 you were an old man.

Not saying that I believe in any social programs that take money forcibly from one group and give to others who never worked a day in their lives for it. I just don't believe it's right to not take care of the elderly who did work their whole lives and for whatever reason cannot manage on their own now.


So, how are you going to take care of these poor elderly folks who through no fault of their own need OUR money? Where I come from, stealing to feed a 20 year old is no different than stealing to feed an 80 year old. The founders obviously agreed with ME, they gave everyone the same, freedom to both die of your mistakes and the freedom to FREELY give to help others. There was NO tax to "help" anyone. Put or shut up was how they rolled. Bright bunch.

[KnickKnack]

So, how are you going to take care of these poor elderly folks who through no fault of their own need OUR money? Where I come from, stealing to feed a 20 year old is no different than stealing to feed an 80 year old. The founders obviously agreed with ME, they gave everyone the same, freedom to both die of your mistakes and the freedom to FREELY give to help others. There was NO tax to "help" anyone. Put or shut up was how they rolled. Bright bunch.

The founders also owned slaves.

As I said, times have changed. In the days of the founders, if someone needed help there was someone else to take them in and care for them. If the elderly have no family left to care for them, your answer is to put them in a ditch and let them die. I believe the Founder's answer would be to take them in and care for them. Unless, of course, they were a slave. Then your answer probably applies.

[timshufflin]

The founders also owned slaves.

As I said, times have changed. In the days of the founders, if someone needed help there was someone else to take them in and care for them. If the elderly have no family left to care for them, your answer is to put them in a ditch and let them die. I believe the Founder's answer would be to take them in and care for them. Unless, of course, they were a slave. Then your answer probably applies.

Yes, they owned slaves and considered them farm animals, or at least many of them did, so what? They still had a hand in framing the law of this land and that law is the US Constitution, do you believe it should hold the power of law in this country, to the "last dotted "i"?"

KK, there is a very simple reason that many in this country will not give anything to anyone anymore, we ALREADY gave too much on April 15th! I will not so much as donate another dime so long as this country continues to waiver from the founders US Constitution. I no longer have the stomach to "help" anyone when I know full well they already have my families cash in their back pocket.