Mr VJP

"One does not hunt in order to kill; on the contrary, one kills in order to have hunted...If one were to present the sportsman with the death of the animal as a gift he would refuse it. What he is after is having to win it, to conquer the surly brute through his own effort and skill with all the extras that this carries with it: the immersion in the countryside, the healthfulness of the exercise, the distraction from his job. Jose Ortega y Gasset, Meditations on Hunting

Yep, just opinions. No truth in any of it at all. Perfectly points out exactly why every single point made is real. A lot of the electorate either has no clue how they are getting royally screwed, doesn't care, supports it, or likes it. Elected officials LOVE electorate apathy.

"The Rochester and Buffalo metro areas are the third and fourth poorest cities in America after Detroit and Cleveland, according to the Census, but they could become the northeastern capitals of the U.S. energy renaissance. When even the EPA blesses fracking, the self-serving political hackery behind Mr. Cuomo’s ban is exposed for all the world to see." WSJ

From The Wall Street Journal http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-epa-fracking-miracle-1433460321 The truth is that state oversight, industry best practices and especially innovation in technology and engineering are more than adequate to protect water and the wider ecology, as well as the prosperity that fracking underwrites. The EPA paper even accepts that the domestic energy boom has “increased domestic energy supplies and brought economic benefits to many areas of the United States.” Some areas—but not all. One exception is New York, where Governor Andrew Cuomobanned fracking by executive order after winning re-election last year. The Democrat hinted during his campaign that he was open to drilling, especially upstate atop the oil-and-gas-rich Marcellus Shale that straddles Pennsylvania and the Empire State. But suddenly his health department rolled out a report full of dubious science concluding that it could not say with “absolute scientific certainty”—as if such a thing exists—that fracking does not endanger the public. The department cited “potential water contamination” and “the potential to affect drinking water quality.” In other words, Mr. Cuomo’s sleuths couldn’t find conclusive evidence that fracking harms drinking water, so he banned it until they can. Even as formerly depressed and deindustrialized Pennsylvania regions benefit from drilling, over the border the unlucky saps must bow to the green superstitions of New York City elites.

NY will never admit it made a mistake. The window of golden opportunity has passed and many NY citizens have once again been victimized by Albany and it's liberal base. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2015/06/05/even-liberal-npr-covers-epa-fracking-study-abc-nbc-punt?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=marketing&utm_term=facebook&utm_content=facebook&utm_campaign=npr-fracking

No ID needed to vote because the Democrats want it that way. Many of the folks they want to vote their way don't have any ID, or are voting early and often. I hear the left is even courting a new voting contingency called "Dead Democrats". The sad part is, many Americans support not needing ID to vote. They're all Leftists of course, but still considered Americans. They don't mind the laughter from the rest of the world either.

When another member of your household calls the cops on you, it doesn't matter if they were needed or not. Pandora's box has been opened and you are the one they are coming for. You would be ordered by the cops to leave and all your gun rights will be taken at the same time. It's happened thousands of times in NY already since the SAFE Act passed. If you are lucky and have the money to fight the action in court, you may be able to get your guns back. But as illustrated by the original post, the odds are against you under the SAFE Act. I believe we will see a lot more of these calls in NY in the future because NY is going to encourage people to call the cops on gun owners as often as possible in order to go up their rectums with a microscope to find a reason to take their guns. Gun ownership in NY State is no longer the uncontested Constitutional right many gun owners still believe it to be. NY State has mounted a campaign to make all gun owners in the state suspect in the eyes of the public. Rule of Law is on the side of the gun owner, but the legal pursuit of it has been moved up to the US Supreme Court by NY State, and getting there takes years and costs a fortune, and that's if you are lucky enough to be able to do it. NY gun owners need to realize just how much of a threat the SAFE Act really is and start taking steps to avoid it's abuses.

You guys really think you would never be subject to police confiscating your guns in NY State? You have no idea what kind of power the SAFE Act has given the police when it comes to taking your firearms. There are a number of reasons they could come to your home looking for guns without you calling them. Anyone can drop a dime on you for any reason. Someone you've never met could just hear you own guns and decide to tell the police they think you are a threat. Someone could falsely accuse you of being an aggressor in a road rage incident. Your wife may decide she wants to divorce you and being a gun owner will get a restraining order on you quicker than you can call your lawyer. One of your kids may decide to mess with you and call the cops. One of your firearms may cause an injury to you or someone else and the cops are coming to your home whether you like it or not. The point being made by this post is, don't assume you are above this scenario because you think you are. You're not. These type of, "it will never happen to me" posts, do nothing to help repeal the SAFE Act. They actually can be interpreted as support for the SAFE Act as if it only affects firearm owners that deserve abuse from it.

Just goes to prove the point that this type of thing can happen to any average family and the NY gun owner will be the one the state comes down on like a sledge hammer.

Read it again. He allowed his mom to live with him in his house.

One can easily see how they can find themselves in a similar situation in NY State. http://www.guns.com/2015/06/03/n-y-gun-owners-seek-to-halt-county-police-confiscations/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/01/obamas-unified-agenda-means-more-gun-control-by-executive-fiat/

Forget who originally posted it. Like Doc said, it's all true. If anyone would care to pick apart the 10 items listed with some dissent, that would be worth reading. Most of the replies to this post so far, are not.

No real surprise here. NY seems to pass laws based on buying votes and bending to popular fear more than anything. That's how NY got the SAFE Act too. Data and hard evidence will always be rejected whenever the slightest possible danger exists in the minds of the majority of NY voters, regardless of the costs to the state and it's citizens. In NY rule of law is ignored. Majority rules, even when the majority is it's own worst enemy or in support of infringing on Constitutional rights.

This is Canada's comedian's (version of Letterman) Top Ten List of America's Stupidity. We look like idiots! # 10 Only in America... could politicians talk about the greed of the rich at a $35,000.00 per plate Obama campaign fund-raising event. # 09 Only in America... could people claim that the government still discriminates against black Americans when they have a black President, a black Attorney General and roughly 20% of the federal workforce is black while only 14% of the population is black, 40+% of all federal entitlements goes to black Americans - 3X the rate that go to whites, 5X the rate that go to Hispanics! # 08 Only in America... could they have had the two people most responsible for our tax code, Timothy Geithner (the head of the Treasury Department) and Charles Rangel (who once ran the Ways and Means Committee), BOTH turn out to be tax cheats who are in favor of higher taxes. # 07 Only in America... can they have terrorists kill people in the name of Allah and have the media primarily react by fretting that Muslims might be harmed by the backlash. # 06 Only in America... would they make people who want to legally become American citizens wait for years in their home countries and pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege, while they discuss letting anyone who sneaks into the country illegally just 'magically' become American citizens. (probably should be number one) # 05 Only in America... could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country's Constitution be called EXTREMISTS. # 04 Only in America... could you need to present a driver's license to cash a check or buy alcohol, but not to vote. # 03 Only in America... could people demand the government investigate whether oil companies are gouging the public because the price of gas went up when the return on equity invested in a major U.S. Oil company (Marathon Oil) is less than half of a company making tennis shoes (Nike). # 02 Only in America... could you collect more tax dollars from the people than any nation in recorded history, still spend a Trillion dollars more than it has per year – for total spending of $7 Million PER MINUTE, and complain that it doesn't have nearly enough money. # 01 Only in America.... could the rich people - who pay 86% of all income taxes - be accused of not paying their "fair share" by people who don't pay any income taxes at all.

Obama's DOJ to Circumvent Congress with 'More than a Dozen' New Gun Controls Obama’s Department of Justice is working on “more than a dozen” new gun control regulations it plans to begin implementing apart from Congress. Some of the regulations are set to be put in place by November, others simply by the end of the Obama administration. According to The Hill, “the regulations range from new restrictions on high-powered pistols to gun storage requirements” and the issuance of “new rules expanding criteria for people who do not quality for gun ownership.” Part and parcel to this new “criteria” will be an ATF-implemented ban on gun ownership for anyone “convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence.” Gun Owners of America’s Michael Hammond warns that under this rule the person barred from gun ownership “could be [someone] who spanked his kid, or yelled at his wife, or slapped her husband.” The new regulations will also include ATF enlargements on mental health-based gun ownership bans. Hammond summed this up by saying, “The Obama administration is trying very hard to disqualify people from owning a gun on the basis that they are seeing a psychologist.” And the NRA pointed out that because most mentally ill persons pose no threat to society, the new regulations will actually become “snares [for] masses of mostly harmless individuals.”... Lynch’s DOJ now has the Second Amendment in its sights.

More regulation to be placed on the backs of the American consumer. All of this stuff raises the price of everything, with no evidence of any real return on the consumers investment. Fortunately, there are some elected officials who are finally saying, "Enough!". http://downtrend.com/robertgehl/the-last-straw-congresswoman-draws-the-efficiency-line-at-the-regulation-of-ceiling-fans?utm_source=fnot1&utm_medium=facebook

No that was Carolyn McCarthy. He husband was killed and her son wounded on the LIRR when a nut with a gun decided to shoot it up. That got her elected on an anti-gun platform. She finally retired. This Congress woman, Carolyn Maloney, was born and raised in South Carolina, went to college there, moved to NYC in 1970 and found her Leftist Liberal utopia. She decided to stay and mess up the country from there since then. Maloney's initiative to implement firearm liability insurance has been met with widespread criticism. Experts in insurance law state liability insurance would not deter gun violence, as criminal activity and suicides- comprising 97% of firearm deaths- do not fall under liability policies. Economists from Stanford University have also theorized the main motivation of advocates of firearm liability laws is to discourage gun ownership by raising the cost of owning a gun.

I had a 2009 Ford Escape that almost got me killed. But not in an accident. I pulled up to a red light behind a huge, bearded, tattooed, biker looking dude in a pick up, with all sorts of killer type stickers on his windows and bumper. Before the light turns green, the horn on the Ford suddenly starts blowing and won't stop. The guy gives me a look in his mirror and sees me hitting my horn like mad trying to make it stop. He gets out and starts walking my way. Cars behind me prevent backing up. I put both my hands up as he gets to the window and say, "The horn's possessed!". He looks confused for a second, looks at the steering wheel and the rest of the SUV and shakes his head walking away. I hit the horn a few more times but it's still blowing. Pulled over and yanked the fuse to stop it. Turns out the air bag on the steering wheel is what you push to blow the horn and hot weather causes the plastic plate on the back of it to warp and blow the horn. Replacing the air bag is the only way to fix it. That costs $300. Ford ran an offer a few months later on a new truck that was a great deal with high trade in allowances for recent year used Ford SUV's and trucks. I traded it. They never tried blowing the horn when they looked it over and probably found the horn problem later. I bet they thought it was an easy fix when they put a fuse back in it.

Seems to me, every rabidly anti-gun politician has that same crazed look when they attack gun rights. It has to be some form of mental disorder to have such hatred for an inanimate object.

A Democrat Congress woman from NY state has an idea that will affect law abiding gun owners, but not one single criminal, and she knows it! The anti-gun agenda pushed by Democrats has nothing to do with reducing crime! http://www.examiner.com/article/ny-congresswoman-would-mandate-liability-insurance-for-gun-owners

Then you should find the global warming alarmists hilarious, and stop running around. LOL!

LOL!!

New York may consider making this mandatory. LOL!! http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes/wisconsin-may-legalize-blaze-pink-to-encourage-women-to-hunt?src=SOC&dom=fb

Historically, this may be the largest expansion of Federal Regulatory Control by a US Government Agency. The costs to the public and the economy are unpredictable. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed new regulations that would give the agency control over more privately owned land than ever before. EPA issued the regulations despite the Supreme Court ruling twice in recent years that federal environmental officials had too expansively defined its Clean Water Act powers. In its newly proposed regulations, EPA claims dry streambeds that only occasionally fill with water qualify as navigable waterways under the Clean Water Act. EPA also expands its definition of what qualifies as navigable. Further, EPA claims small ponds and water holes can qualify as navigable waterways even if they are not navigable and are not physically connected to navigable waters. Instead, EPA claims federal environmental officials can view multiple such small bodies of water in combination, even if they are not physically connected. http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2014/07/05/epa-defies-supreme-court-proposes-unprecedented-water-regulations