Mr VJP

I Googled a small portion of the text and got the article without the pop up. Gov. Andrew Cuomo claims his anti-gun law, known as the SAFE Act, is "the toughest in the nation," but on its three-year anniversary this Thursday it's looking more like a monumental failure. The governor claims his law bans sales of military-style assault weapons. Yet today you can walk into any gun store in New York and walk out with essentially the same kind of gun he intended to ban. The industry has reacted to the law by simply redesigning the guns to avoid the features the law prohibits and which Cuomo apparently believed made them more lethal. Worse, for those who prefer their firearms in their original design, a thriving black market has emerged with guns brought into New York from other states by aspiring small (and illegally operating) businessmen. This is a TU+ story. Click for more information. Like other unpopular laws such as Prohibition and the 55 mph speed limit, the SAFE Act is not obeyed by a vast majority of citizens who should be complying with it. Cuomo has succeeded in creating an underground market where there was none before. Between the redesigned firearms sold legally in local gun stores and old-style guns sold illegally out of car trunks, there are probably many more assault weapons in New York state today than when the SAFE Act was passed three years ago. Cuomo's signature gun law has had no discernible impact on the numbers or availability of guns in New York. The SAFE Act also required that the estimated 1 million assault weapons in private ownership in 2013 be registered with theState Police. After the Cuomo administration stonewalled a Freedom of Information request for more than a year, an Albany judge ordered the State Police to release data on the number of weapons registered as required. They revealed that only 44,000 firearms had been registered. Subtract from that number the firearms owned by police officers and licensed dealers (who have little way to avoid registration), and it's clear the compliance rate for registration among average citizens is less than 4 percent. It's hard to call a law that commands a 96 percent noncompliance rate a success. More Information Assemblyman Bill Nojay, R-Pittsford, represents the 133th Assembly District. Another requirement, that any buyer of ammunition undergo a background check, has failed to be implemented, apparently because the State Police can't create the database and registration system for any reasonable cost. The law includes a "snitch" rule, requiring mental health professionals to report clients who they think might be a danger. Although this sounds good to some, it violates the civil rights of innocent citizens and has proven impossible to implement without gross violations of personal privacy and due process. Even the Obama administration has said they will not violate veterans' privacy and have prohibited the Veterans Administration from complying. Many mental health professionals similarly refuse to cooperate. Finally, the Cuomo gun law prohibited putting more than seven bullets in your gun, even if its magazine had a higher capacity. Apparently Cuomo thought a criminal would count his bullets to stay under the limit before committing murder or mayhem. This rule was laughed out of even New York's liberal federal courts, which declared it unconstitutional if not just plain dumb. So, what is left of Cuomo's SAFE Act? It has many minor provisions, some of which are working, but from the perspective of criminals, not much has changed. They can still buy all the guns they want to commit crimes. To lawful citizens who want to own a gun, there is a giant government record-keeping bureaucracy, additional cost and waiting times, but little real impact on what firearms they can buy if they want them. The SAFE Act therefore burdens people who do not commit crimes, while having no impact on the real source of gun crime in New York: street violence in poor urban neighborhoods. Due to its time-wasting bureaucracy, three-quarters of the state's county sheriffs (including those elected in virtually all of the rural counties) have made clear they are not aggressively enforcing the SAFE Act, except as an "add-on" charge for other crimes, and 52 of the state's 62 county legislatures have approved resolutions opposing the SAFE Act. So where should we go on controlling gun violence? How about if pandering politicians like Andrew Cuomo stop using the Second Amendment and law-abiding citizens as political footballs? No one wants the mentally ill or criminals to have guns, so let's sit down and have a serious discussion — not through sound bites and bad legislation. Otherwise, we'll prolong the debate over guns and crime with more false starts and wasted taxpayer dollars. Today's Premium Content- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Albany man with Huntington's warned to control himself at movie theater Colonie looks to regulate clothing donation bins Albany shouldn't play doctor Challenges amid carmakers' cheers Rex Smith: New Yorkers' values, and Texans', too Informed consumers avoid pitfalls of plastic and build their credit Sometimes a great deal is nothing great 'Revenant' emerges as Oscar favorite VIEW COMMENTS

For those too young to remember, the same lack of response happened when Carter was POTUS and Iran took over the US Embassy there in 1979. They held Americans hostage for 444 days. Only the election and installation of President Reagan got them released. That seems to say a lot about which American political party hostile foreign governments respect and fear. At least the Iran hostage crises was not covered up with a bold face lie.

Partisanship is a good thing for the country: David Harsanyi: "My favorite part of Tuesday's speech was the president's assertion that the Founding Fathers wanted us to argue about 'the meaning of liberty.' This was the only time Obama mentioned the word 'liberty' in his speech, and when he spoke about 'freedom,' it was never in the context of the Constitution. Now, I wouldn't claim to know exactly what the founders desired for us, beyond mentioning that they codified many ideas of the Enlightenment and specifically wrote them down for us to follow, sometimes even numbering them so we would understand. Although they certainly debated some of these notions, it is implausible to believe that any Founding Father would be OK with forcing the Little Sisters of the Poor to pay for someone else's birth control or forcing Americans to report to a bureaucracy such as the IRS before engaging in political speech. Progressives want to redefine freedom as a form of dependency and common good, not argue about its traditional contours. So yes, some people are suspicious of 'change.' ... Anyone who believes [Obama] has a monopoly over the 'future' deserves the suspicion and rancor that come with politics. It's not to say that blind partisanship or uniformity is productive or that Republicans have answers. But partisanship — as in prejudice toward a particular cause — allows us to avoid destructive national political 'unity.' So as rancorous as partisanship is, it's far less destructive than Obama's political ideal." However, when an agenda is being forced upon the masses, dissent cannot be tolerated.

No they won't, because I was not the OP.

Just as an aside...... I find it hilarious this thread has not been moved to the political forum.

I'm not surprised by people, who push the Leftist agenda, trying to squash any discussion of both sides of the issue. Why would anyone believe anything said by our government, can be given any credibility without question?

Liberals do it to ban things they want banned. They want to make anything they don't like go away. BTW, they don't like people who don't agree with them. Smellin' my breeze people? This is why people who cherish the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution cannot stand Leftist Progressive Liberals. Nothing personal. Just natural.

More info..... https://www.oathkeepers.org/the-battle-of-hearts-and-minds-in-harney-county-oregon/

This is also very interesting........ https://www.oathkeepers.org/coalition-of-western-states-press-release-fire-marshall-resigns/ FBI agents have been posing as militia members and intimidating the townspeople of Burns, Oregon. Chris Briels, the Fire Chief of Burns, has just resigned in disgust over these actions.

In reality, the only ones who find it racist are the ones who want it to be racist. When a racist displays the Confederate flag, that doesn't make it racist flag. It makes it a symbol being misused by a racist.

You are correct that's it's at the Best Western. I get all those hotels mixed up.

Liberals consider most everything as being racist these days.

I think quite a few gun owners, as evidenced by some of their posts on this site, actually voted for Cuomo. The worst enemy of gun owners are politicians, usually Democrats, who want to attack gun rights. The next worst enemy of gun owners, are the gun owners who support Democrats that want to attack gun rights. Voting is important, yes. But voting for candidates that REALLY support the 2nd Amendment, is even more important.

Your first statement was a generality. In general, conservatives do not find the Confederate flag to be a racist symbol. In fact, many so called "liberals" do not agree it's a racist symbol either, but like I said, those would be the educated ones who know a little about the Civil War. The Conservative platform is standing up for the historical meaning of the flag, which is a symbol of the Confederacy, it's stance against aggression and the soldiers that fought under it. It's history, not racism. Conservatives support the truth. The truth is Democrats of today are trying to re-write history to fit their agenda. Supporting the flag means you are actually opposing the Democrats of today, who are trying to stifle free speech, free thought and intelligent debate, in order to control the minds of their low I.Q. supporters. I can't tell if you are trying to provoke an argument, or are really that clueless regarding the history of the civil war and modern day Progressive Leftists.

There will be a gun show at the Quality Inn in Matamoras PA, across the Delaware River from Port Jervis, NY on Saturday 1/16/16. Supposed to be 200 tables there. Anyone ever attend this show? Just wondering if it's worth a look.

They do? Personally, I think anyone who thinks it's a racist symbol has no education regarding the south or the War of Aggression. There are plenty of Southern Blacks who admire and display that flag. As far as another civil war goes, there are plenty of real Americans in this land that have removed themselves from the politics and election process in this country, simply because it has become a farce. But a civil war would be completely real to many of them, and I believe they would get involved with gusto if given the chance to force constitutional principles on the leftists without fear of going to jail.

Better to die on your feet fighting, than live like a slave on your knees.

I still have an issue with the cost to the taxpayer

These towns create these problems by banning hunting and then make taxpayers bear the cost of fixing them. This also isn't a one time fix. It will need to be done regularly.

Well, this is rather interesting........ "The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is showing they have no rules to follow and no regard for either animal or human life, in the video the BLM is burning the land around Prince Glenn, Oregon, and telling ranchers and farmers to stand down and if they attempt to stop the fire they will be arrested. Meanwhile in the video, Oregon land owners, neighbors and citizens try to scramble to save their belongings and the life of their cattle. Folks can see these cows burned alive while the BLM federal workers start more fires in the background, including one while the film is rolling." http://www.examiner.com/…/blm-burns-land-unsupervised-feds-… -- Admin Robert Hase

I'm assuming hunting is not allowed in this town?

This is also done regularly in Princeton, NJ, (where they banned all hunting by making discharge of ANY weapon illegal) but they use a private company called "White Buffalo". They shoot semi auto black rifles with silencers at night over bait (none of which is legal for hunting in NJ) and often do not recover the dead deer. They charge taxpayers $1000 per deer and they report how many they have killed without the carcasses. Bowhunters in NJ would be happy to PAY to hunt there, but Princeton is more concerned with control than saving tax dollars. If this town in NY follows the lead of most other places that do this, they will simply be spending a lot of tax money to kill deer, when they could allow bow hunters to do it and make money off of them.

The real issue boils down to private property and the federal government. Liberals and other defenders of the power of the state over the individual assume the government owns the majority of land in the West and it graciously allows ranchers to use it provided they pay reasonable fees. If challenged on this premise, liberals usually cite the Property Clause in Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution. Proponents of state power over the individual argue the Property Clause permits a centralized federal government to hold state lands for a variety of reasons–presently and popularly for liberals to preserve wildlife and the environment–but this interpretation (known as the “police-power theory”) runs counter to the original purpose of the clause. Thomas W. Merrill, a law professor at Columbia Law Schools, cites a court ruling to explain the original concept of the Property Clause: "A leading nineteenth-century exposition of the constitutional authority of the federal government over federal lands, Fort Leavenworth Railroad Co. v. Lowe (1885), is generally consistent with [the original understanding of the Property Clause]. There, Justice Stephen J. Field wrote that the authority of the federal government over territories is “necessarily paramount.” But once a territory is organized as a state and admitted to the union on equal footing with other states, the state government assumes general sovereignty over federal lands, and the federal government has the rights only of an “individual proprietor.” The federal government can exercise rights of general sovereignty over property only if there has been a formal cession of sovereignty by the state under the Enclave Clause. Justice Field qualified this vision of separated sovereignty, however, by noting that if the federal government acquires land outside the Enclave Clause, any federal forts, buildings, or other installations erected on such land “will be free from any such interference and jurisdiction of the State as would destroy or impair their effective use for the purposes designed.” The Enclave clause limits federal government ownership of land to “Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings,” including post offices and post roads. A better understanding of the issue can be had by reading Robert G. Natelson’s Federal Land Retention and the Constitution’s Property Clause: The Original Understanding (University of Colorado Law Review, 2005). “The Enclave Clause was sold to the ratifying public on the basis that enclaves would be relatively small. Holding massive tracts of undeveloped land (such as in Yosemite National Park, nearly 750,000 acres) as enclaves is not what the Founders had in mind,” writes Natelson. Under this original and subsequently diluted understanding of the Property and Enclave Clause—most recently with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976—the Bureau of Land Management has no right to hold land and should have long ago disposed of it. (Moreover, it can be argued, the BLM itself is an unconstitutional and therefore illegal entity.) Unfortunately, due to the impulsive behavior of Ammond Bundy and his crew in Oregon, the corporate media has aggressively pushed the government’s stance on the Property Clause and its unconstitutional domination over millions of acres of land around the United States. It is indeed unfortunate the Constitution—misread and turned into a cudgel for state power with the help of the corporate media—has been overshadowed by the irresponsible actions of a gang of self-defined patriots who are doing absolutely nothing constructive for the cause of individual rights and private property. Instead, they have allowed the media to portray constitutionalists and other advocates of liberty as little more than armed fanatics bent on starting a war with the federal government.

That's correct. That's why I posted it.

What's your question Junkie? I already posted the above stating my view on the issue. Did you not read the link?