Jim Tedisco, who is our NY State Assemblyman, responds his thoughts about the Safe Act that was signed into law yesterday, and guess what? He doesn’t agree with it! Even he agrees that the law makes us less safer. He also brings up a good point, that having a few bullets to defend ourselves with isn’t enough. You can still buy guns legally, but allowing only 7 bullets is pretty ridiculous, and that’s what pissing us New Yorker’s off. He is also right that the Safe Act isn’t going to stop people from doing bad things.
I would own a gun legally to defend myself. If a guy tries to attack me when I’m out and about in public, I would do anything to save my own ass. Even if it means, killing the bastard. We should have our own right to defend ourselves, and not have the government tell us what to do.
Thanks Jim! If he ran for Governor or President, he would get my full support!
Kev
K'Brocking 
good day, I’m commenting on gun control. Government tyranny is here now. State attempted killing of u.s. citizens over political court extortion: http://www.mftms13.wordpress.com
Yep! Good thing I got my cache of weapon well hidden from the government. They ain gonna find em, nosirree. But if’n they do, they got another thing comin I tell you what. I don’t care if I been diagnosed as schizophrenia or what. They is my right to keep and bare arms.
FFS, you can own more than 7 bullets. And if you are properly trained, and know WTF you’re doing, you really only need one.
You don’t own a gun now, and I highly doubt you ever will. I’d be willing to bet you never even shot a gun in your life. It’s attitudes like yours that give gun owners and supporters a bad name.
Suppose you are attacked…a guy pulls a gun on you when you are “out and about” and demands your money. Realistically, how much money are you going to have on you? And more importantly, is it enough to justify killing someone over? Is it worth dying over?
Have you ever even been attacked while you are “out and about”?
Kill KIll Kill…that’s what it’s all about right? Anti gun activists believe guns are only for killing. And you are making their point for them.
Yes, I have shot a gun before. Many times actually, and am pretty good at it! I have a good eye with skeet shooting and target practice. I’m thinking about getting a gun of my own soon anyway. Not just for safety and self defense, just for the enjoyment of target practice. A hobby.
I’m not siding with the anti-gun activists. I totally support the 2nd amendment, all the way.
Obama’s proposals today were a joke, much worse than the NY State Safe Act. Sickens me even more, that children are being exploited in this too.
Kev
Nothing in the proposals inhibits gun sales in any way. Did you even read them?
Here- go through one by one and explain why they are bad:
1. “Issue a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.”
2. “Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.”
3. “Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.”
4. “Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.”
5. “Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.”
6. “Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.”
7. “Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.”
8. “Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).”
9. “Issue a presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.”
10. “Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.”
11. “Nominate an ATF director.”
12. “Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.”
13. “Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.”
14. “Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.”
15. “Direct the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.”
16. “Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.”
17. “Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.”
18. “Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.”
19. “Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.”
20. “Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.”
21. “Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.”
22. “Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.”
23. “Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.”
Everything is wrong with it. All that is not going to reduce gun violence. They just made criminals happy and it will happen even more. No matter how they try to change the law, you are exploiting the second amendment. Period, end of story.
Kev
Explain, please.
Almost everything in there makes it tougher for criminals or the mentally ill to obtain guns. And there is absolutely nothing in there that would prevent YOU or ANY OTHER law abiding citizen from obtaining a gun. NOTHING. I mean, you ARE a law abiding citizen, right? Not a convicted felon? No outstanding warrants? No mental health issues?
It maybe getting tougher for criminals and the mentally ill to get guns, but people with a clean record or completely sane people can commit mass murders too. It happens. They don’t think about that stuff.
Kev
On a side note, all those 23 proposals, won’t keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Even if they won’t be allowed to buy them at gun shops, they’ll find a way to smuggle them illegally. They’ll always find a way around it. Don’t be surprised if another mass shooting happens in the near future. I’m willing to bet we will get another one pretty quick.
Kev
Well, short of setting up a system to read the mind of every single American, there’s nothing you can do about “clean record” or “sane people” suddenly committing mass murder, and that’s why this stuff isn’t directed at them.
True but that’s not the point. Whether people have a clean record or if you have a high criminal record, you can’t exploit the 2nd amendment. It’s here for a reason so we can protect ourselves from situations like this. Changing the laws is disrespecting the Constitution.
Kev
That’s what Jim Tedisco is talking about in that video. I agree with him in all points.
Kev
You do realize that you are making the case for the other side now, right? If completely sane and law-abiding citizens can commit mass murder, maybe they shouldn’t be allowed to own guns either.
That is ridiculous.
And yes, criminals will always find a way to get guns, just as they always find ways to buy drugs, steal cars, rob banks, etc…
Banning all guns out right won’t even stop criminals from getting guns. And that is why we don’t do it. The 2nd Amendment is alive and will, and will be for a long time. The only way the 2nd Amendment can be changed is through repeal or another Amendment. And that can not happen without a Constitutional Convention. And that can not happen until the year 2020.
The 2nd Amendment is alive and well, yes, but can’t you understand why the American people gets upset when the government decides to make gun laws tougher and exploiting our rights? The thing is howdy, that you seem to be siding with the government and the President’s actions on everything. Can’t you understand why the topic of gun control is so controversial and the debates on the internet won’t stop? There are too many people upset at the government. I know they’re not taking guns away from us completely, but the tougher the laws get, will turn people away from buying them legally. That’s why we’re all upset.
Kev
“On a side note, all those 23 proposals, won’t keep guns out of the hands of criminals.”
What are you talking about? Points 9, 10, 12, and 13 directly address criminals and making it harder for them to get guns, or deal with them if they do.
As I said before, criminals will always find ways to get them. They can smuggle ’em, buy ’em from gangs, drug dealers, and other criminals. They’ll find their ways to get their hands on guns illegally.
Kev
Criminals will not always find ways. The harder it gets, the smaller the pool of criminals persistent enough to get them it becomes.
Well, no duh – but Adam Lanza wasn’t a criminal and he the weapons he had were legally obtained by his mother. I think you’re missing the ENTIRE point of gun restrictions.
It’s not disrespecting the Constitution. The first amendment says we have freedom of speech, but if you shout fire in a crowded building you can be arrested for inciting a panic. If you have a church but start using it to advocate political points, you can have your tax exempt status revoked. If you have a news outlet but start using it to print false information about people, you can be fined for libel. None of those are disrespecting the first amendment, they’re there to keep the peace and prevent idiots from exploiting it by doing illegal or dangerous things.
The second amendment says that to have a well-armed militia, you have the right to bear arms. It does not say you have the right to any firearm you want, like RPGs or Pancor Jackhammers. It doesn’t say you have the right to take potshots out your front door. It doesn’t say you can take said gun and wave it around in public (lest you be arrested for brandishing.) Just because a law restricts certain people or certain types of weapons doesn’t mean Obama is spitting on the Constitution.
The second amendment says that to have a well-armed militia, you have the right to bear arms. It does not say you have the right to any firearm you want, like RPGs or Pancor Jackhammers.
You’re really delusional. The 2nd Amendment allows anyone to own any kind of firearm legally. That includes RPG’s, Pancor Jackhammers, Hechler & Koch, any kind of machine gun, pistols, sniper weapons, etc. There are a lot of people out there that collect all kinds of guns. Not to be violent or anything like that. People just like to collect guns as a hobby. There are all kinds of people in the US, who bought all kinds of crazy guns as a collection.
Jim Tedisco just gave a simple explanation in that video that everyone has the right to bear arms. Did you even watch that video? He explained the 2nd Amendment beautifully.
Kev
No it doesn’t. All it says is the right to bear arms. It doesn’t specify which arms. It doesn’t even say firearms at all.
Otherwise, why does the government require things like tanks and jet fighters be demiiltarized (read, stripped of any and all weapons, or otherwise made inoperable) before civilians can own them? Why are there laws against modifying certain weapons? Why is it illegal to make a serial number on a gun unreadable?
No it doesn’t. All it says is the right to bear arms. It doesn’t specify which arms. It doesn’t even say firearms at all.
Dude, I believe, you don’t even understand the 2nd Amendment one bit. Straight from the constitution itself…
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
It doesn’t specify which arms, but 2nd Amendment refers to all arms in general. It doesn’t matter what weapon it is. We all have the right to bear arms on everything. We can purchase any gun legally, doesn’t matter what it is. If the 2nd Amendment specified which arms, it would say so, but it doesn’t. If the 2nd amendment was strict on certain firearms, than law enforcement and military services like the Army wouldn’t be allowed to have them either. It doesn’t need to mention, “firearms”, brotha. I believe, “arms” and “firearms” mean the same thing.
Kev
Did you know that a trident nuclear submarine falls under the classification of arms? So does the Apache helicopter. Should we be able to own those as well? Nuclear missiles and land mines are also arms.
You need to understand how the Constitution works. It was purposely written in a vague manner so as to be a living document and open to interpretation as the Nation and the World grew.
The 2nd Amendment does not allow you to own any type of “arms” you want.
The exact language of the 2nd Amendment includes the term “well regulated”. They left it open to have controls in place.
Every single one of the first ten amendments has regulations, rules, restrictions or laws regarding it. None of them are absolute rights.
We do have a right to own arms, but the government has an obligation to define what exactly is meant by “arms”.
Did you know that a trident nuclear submarine falls under the classification of arms? So does the Apache helicopter. Should we be able to own those as well? Nuclear missiles and land mines are also arms.
You need to understand how the Constitution works. It was purposely written in a vague manner so as to be a living document and open to interpretation as the Nation and the World grew.
The 2nd Amendment does not allow you to own any type of “arms” you want.
You’re full of shit, bro, like the usual. You can own pretty much everything legally. Even some of the most outrageous weapons. As long as you have the money and the permits, you’re good to go. Look around. People out there owned the craziest shit. There are crazy collectors out there. You would be surprised of what people have. 🙂
Kev
And don’t get me wrong, I’m not an advocate of getting rid of guns. I have no problem with clean record people owning a gun or ten. I have no problem with CCWs. But because guns are so dangerous by their very nature, having responsible laws regulating them is necessary in certain situations. People who find any type of regulation on guns to be an affront to the second amendment get on my nerves.
well said
No, actually he failed in properly explaing the 2nd Amendment. He only quoted PART of it.
His exact words:
“And you know within this document there’s what’s called the 2nd Amendment. And you’ve heard what a portion of that says..,.”
A portion. JUST a PORTION.
“It says the people’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
He ignores the “well regulated” part.
He does acknowledge “militia” but he fails to grasp the concept of 2A.
2A:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
he right of the people to keep and bear arms was necessary, as it was The People that were to make up the militia. The WELL REGULATED militia. You really need to study the history and especially the twenty or so years following the ratification of 2A and the discussion of “militias” and free standing armies at the time.
Furthermore, what you describe or refer to here”
True but that’s not the point. Whether people have a clean record or if you have a high criminal record, you can’t exploit the 2nd amendment. It’s here for a reason so we can protect ourselves from situations like this. Changing the laws is disrespecting the Constitution.
Kev
doesn’t really fall under the Security of a Free State that would be protected by militia/military. This is more of a police/law enforcement matter. As is any attack while “out and about”. Now I do agree that under those circumstances, we all DO have a right to defend ourselves, but that is not what the 2nd Amendment is about. And those are situations to be governed by local law.
The 2nd Amendment was purely about protecting the State(Country) and its citizens from tyranny and outside invading forces. That is why 2A speaks specifically and ONLY to that matter-“the security of a free state” in regards to ownership and right to bear “arms”.
It does not address hunting or target shooting or personal defense or gun collecting. It addresses one thing, and one thing only-National Security.
No, actually he failed in properly explaing the 2nd Amendment. He only quoted PART of it.
His exact words:
“And you know within this document there’s what’s called the 2nd Amendment. And you’ve heard what a portion of that says..,.”
A portion. JUST a PORTION.
“It says the people’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
He ignores the “well regulated” part.
He really didn’t need to bring up the well regulated part, anyway ’cause it was unimportant. He just wanted to explain that the 2nd Amendment is for all of us. The people.
doesn’t really fall under the Security of a Free State that would be protected by militia/military. This is more of a police/law enforcement matter. As is any attack while “out and about”. Now I do agree that under those circumstances, we all DO have a right to defend ourselves, but that is not what the 2nd Amendment is about. And those are situations to be governed by local law.
The 2nd Amendment was purely about protecting the State(Country) and its citizens from tyranny and outside invading forces. That is why 2A speaks specifically and ONLY to that matter-”the security of a free state” in regards to ownership and right to bear “arms”.
After doing a little heavy reading on what you said, I believe you are partly right. The whole idea of the 2nd Amendment was to help fight against tyranny….however though, you’re missing one thing. Don’t you think that the term “militia”, was actually referring to us? Us Citizens? I believe so…
A few inspirational quotes:
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American … The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People.”
— Tench Coxe, 1788.
“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
“The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, … all men capable of bearing arms;…”
— “Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic”, 1788 (either Richard Henry Lee or Melancton Smith).
Sorry, for the late reply. I was doing some research on this myself. I could go on and prove that the word militia was actually referring to us, not the army or police if that’s what you were thinking.
Kev
Edit to add: Corrected my comment for mistakes.
I’ll reply to more of your crap later, I need a break. You are a piece of work, though.
Kev
“Criminals will not follow these new laws”`Kev
Since when have criminals ever followed laws? Maybe we should just abolish all laws that criminals don’t follow. Take away all the drug laws. The assault laws, rape laws, robbery, vandalism…
Think about it-it would be a great way to eliminate crime and get rid of criminals.. Abolish ALLLLLLLL laws. If there are no laws to break, then there can’t be any crimes committed. And if there are no crimes committed, then there won’t be any criminals.
Wouldn’t that be a great society to live in? No criminals…no crime…Imagine the money that would saved by taxpayers. We wouldn’t need police or prisons. Security companies and alarm companies would go out of business, but I imagine all the people affected by the jobs lost would just find other jobs. Man….imagine how great the economy would be if we didn’t have any crimes or criminals always fucking shit up for everyone.
You wouldn’t have to worry about your kids anymore. You could walk the streets at night. Just think how much cleaner and safer prostitution would be if they didn’t have to hide. And dayyyy-AMMM, I bet the drugs would be some top notch shit. Definiotely worth every dollar you spent on them.
Whoever you are, thank you and props to Kev for not deleting the replies for once.
Who ever the Anonymous is, it’s none other than Kaptainhowdy. He’s not going to win this debate. Trust me.
Kev
I’m thinking about bringing in some help. There are people from my facebook who are big supporters of the 2nd amendment, and they could do a better job debating than I can. They would help me own this guy.
Kev
Since when have criminals ever followed laws? Maybe we should just abolish all laws that criminals don’t follow. Take away all the drug laws. The assault laws, rape laws, robbery, vandalism…
I wasn’t really saying that criminals follow laws, but they certainly won’t follow the new gun proposals. They may not be allowed to buy guns legally anymore, but ever think about that they could have someone with a clean record buy the gun for them? They’re always going to find other ways.
Kev
You have strayed so far from the original point that I don’t think you even know where you are any more.
Initially you posted that the 2nd Amendment was being altered and that our gun rights were going to be taken away. When we posted that that was not the case, you switched to the criminal will always get guns argument. That pretty much ended the debate right there with you failing to put up a single point.
So let’s get back on track here. How are any of the 23 Executive orders, or any of Cuomo’s proposals and new laws stopping people from owning guns?
And to clarify something on the 2nd Amendment regarding arms…
ALL firearms are arms, but not all arms are firearms.
The right to keep and bear arms is not carte blanche to own anything you want.
If the Government wanted to, they could ban all magazines that hold more than one bullet without violating the 2A. They could specify that a gun can not have an auto chambering mechanism. They could specify that bullets could be no larger than .22 caliber, or that that a projectile can not exceed 500fps if they wanted to.
And none of that would violate 2A.
Tell me something, Kev, what do you think would happen if you were to build a dirty bomb? Or a suitcase nuke?
Those are arms. Do you believe we should have that right?
I am seriously and sincerely looking forward to this debate. Whether it be with you, or ANYONE you want to bring into to help you out.
Keep it going for once. Please. I have nor and will not say anything disrespectful as long as you remain civil as well, and continue in the spirit of good sportsmanship. That means no deleting of comments.
I will answer any question directed at me, and I expect the same in return.
No one is expecting criminals to follow the new proposals, or any proposal. The proposals are to close any avenues that could be exploited by criminals, while also making it easier to catch them if they do use guns, and punish them more effectively.
“How are any of the 23 Executive orders, or any of Cuomo’s proposals and new laws stopping people from owning guns?”
Okay, how is all that stuff making us safer? Explain all that first, and then I’ll answer.
Kev
Seriously, dude. Explain to me how all those 23 proposals, the NY State Safe Act and new laws going to keep us safer? I don’t want simple answers, I want just specifics and details on everything. If you can’t explain, then I just proved my point on how these new laws are not going to solve anything and I won this debate. I’ll give you another chance. I’ll make a promise that if you could explain how these make us safer, I will explain how this will stop people from getting guns.
Kev
He really didn’t need to bring up the well regulated part, anyway ’cause it was unimportant. He just wanted to explain that the 2nd Amendment is for all of us. The people.
It is important. It states very clearly exactly WHY we have the right to keep and bear arms.
And the inspirational quotes you posted back that yup.
As far as “who” is the militia, yes, I do believe it is “we, the people”. But again, it is a well regulated militia. Random citizens owning random weapons is not a militia. Regulated, loosely regulated, well regulated, or otherwise.
Get it yet?
Seriously, dude. Explain to me how all those 23 proposals, the NY State Safe Act and new laws going to keep us safer? I don’t want simple answers, I want just specifics and details on everything. If you can’t explain, then I just proved my point on how these new laws are not going to solve anything and I won this debate. I’ll give you another chance. I’ll make a promise that if you could explain how these make us safer, I will explain how this will stop people from getting guns.
Kev
You are asking me to prove a point I never made. I stated that the 23 executive orders do nothing to alter the 2nd Amendment, and do not inhibit or infringe on a qualified individuals right to buy ore guns.
You are missing the point again and changing the subject.
But that’s OK. I will still answer. I will go through all 23, point by point and give you my answers.
But I expect the same respect in return. You have to go through the same list point by point and tell me how they infringe on gun ownership rights, like I asked above.
And “criminals will always get guns” is not a valid answer. Not to anything anywhere in this entire debate.
I’m working a double today and in between shifts right now. My answers will be up some time tomorrow, if not late tonight.