WN: Gov. Cuomo: Pro-life, pro-gun conservatives 'have no place&#3

[MrsRational]

 

I read what he actually said and there is a slight misrepresentation here.

 

1. He said "pro-assault gun" not "pro-guns". Slight difference and a sentiment most people agree with...who needs a gun the fires 500 rounds a second? (I own three guns before anyone claims I am anti-gun).

 

2. Although not worded very well, I think he is talking about the fringe elements that are keeping his state and the country in gridlock. People obsessed with abortions, sexual behaviour of private citizens and guns rather than the bigger picture of running the country and fixing problems.

a gun that fires 500 rounds a second?  I only know of one...  and it only holds about 50 rounds at most.

 

an AR-15 only fires about 12 to 15 fully automatic and they are illegal in all states without a special machine gun weapons permit.....   and that's nearly impossible to get.

 

 

Oh, btw, I don't disagree with people not needing machine guns, but what he calls an assault gun isn't a machine gun......   and banning clips over 7 rounds is just silly.

 

 

I said 500 rounds per second as a joke. Point being I don't think anyone needs to own machines guns or other such types of weapons.

 

Regardless I just wanted to correct the slight mischaracterization of what he said.

Edited January 24, 2014 by MrsRational

[OldSchool2]

"pro-gun" was taken from the Times' headline, not the text of the quote.

“Their problem is not me and the Democrats; their problem is themselves. Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.”

[other one]

 

 

I read what he actually said and there is a slight misrepresentation here.

 

1. He said "pro-assault gun" not "pro-guns". Slight difference and a sentiment most people agree with...who needs a gun the fires 500 rounds a second? (I own three guns before anyone claims I am anti-gun).

 

2. Although not worded very well, I think he is talking about the fringe elements that are keeping his state and the country in gridlock. People obsessed with abortions, sexual behaviour of private citizens and guns rather than the bigger picture of running the country and fixing problems.

a gun that fires 500 rounds a second?  I only know of one...  and it only holds about 50 rounds at most.

 

an AR-15 only fires about 12 to 15 fully automatic and they are illegal in all states without a special machine gun weapons permit.....   and that's nearly impossible to get.

 

 

Oh, btw, I don't disagree with people not needing machine guns, but what he calls an assault gun isn't a machine gun......   and banning clips over 7 rounds is just silly.

 

 

I said 500 rounds per second as a joke. Point being I don't think anyone needs to own machines guns or other type weapons.

 

Regardless I just wanted to correct the slight mischaracterization of what he said.

 

Or other type weapons covers a lot.....   are you saying that I shouldn't have guns at all?

[MrsRational]

 

 

 

I read what he actually said and there is a slight misrepresentation here.

 

1. He said "pro-assault gun" not "pro-guns". Slight difference and a sentiment most people agree with...who needs a gun the fires 500 rounds a second? (I own three guns before anyone claims I am anti-gun).

 

2. Although not worded very well, I think he is talking about the fringe elements that are keeping his state and the country in gridlock. People obsessed with abortions, sexual behaviour of private citizens and guns rather than the bigger picture of running the country and fixing problems.

a gun that fires 500 rounds a second?  I only know of one...  and it only holds about 50 rounds at most.

 

an AR-15 only fires about 12 to 15 fully automatic and they are illegal in all states without a special machine gun weapons permit.....   and that's nearly impossible to get.

 

 

Oh, btw, I don't disagree with people not needing machine guns, but what he calls an assault gun isn't a machine gun......   and banning clips over 7 rounds is just silly.

 

 

I said 500 rounds per second as a joke. Point being I don't think anyone needs to own machines guns or other type weapons.

 

Regardless I just wanted to correct the slight mischaracterization of what he said.

 

Or other type weapons covers a lot.....   are you saying that I shouldn't have guns at all?

 

 

I corrected my post.

[Guest Butero]

I read what he actually said and there is a slight misrepresentation here.

 

1. He said "pro-assault gun" not "pro-guns". Slight difference and a sentiment most people agree with...who needs a gun the fires 500 rounds a second? (I own three guns before anyone claims I am anti-gun).

 

2. Although not worded very well, I think he is talking about the fringe elements that are keeping his state and the country in gridlock. People obsessed with abortions, sexual behaviour of private citizens and guns rather than the bigger picture of running the country and fixing problems.

That doesn't make any difference.  In a free country, people have a right to disagree.  People have a right to support citizens having assault weapons.  As a matter of fact, I oppose all gun control and I oppose any restrictions on the guns we can have.  Of course, I don't live in New York.  Personally, I think this could be a good thing.  The LG of this state invited Sean Hannity to move here, as well as the Governor of Texas, Florida and Alabama.  I would love to see all the conservatives move out of New York, and move down here, and they can bring all their tax money with them.  As a matter of fact, I will swap our liberals for their conservatives, just to make it fair.  I would love to see this nation split into two countries, one with all the liberals and progressives and one with nothing but capitalists.  We have irreconcilable differences, so it is time we go our separate ways, and see how the left survives with a welfare state full of leaches. 

[Guest Butero]

 

 

I read what he actually said and there is a slight misrepresentation here.

 

1. He said "pro-assault gun" not "pro-guns". Slight difference and a sentiment most people agree with...who needs a gun the fires 500 rounds a second? (I own three guns before anyone claims I am anti-gun).

 

2. Although not worded very well, I think he is talking about the fringe elements that are keeping his state and the country in gridlock. People obsessed with abortions, sexual behaviour of private citizens and guns rather than the bigger picture of running the country and fixing problems.

a gun that fires 500 rounds a second?  I only know of one...  and it only holds about 50 rounds at most.

 

an AR-15 only fires about 12 to 15 fully automatic and they are illegal in all states without a special machine gun weapons permit.....   and that's nearly impossible to get.

 

 

Oh, btw, I don't disagree with people not needing machine guns, but what he calls an assault gun isn't a machine gun......   and banning clips over 7 rounds is just silly.

 

 

I said 500 rounds per second as a joke. Point being I don't think anyone needs to own machines guns or other such types of weapons.

 

Regardless I just wanted to correct the slight mischaracterization of what he said.

 

Yes we do.  The reason why we have the right to own weapons is so we can defend ourselves against a future tyrannical government.  We therefore need to be free to own any weapon we want.  Citizens have a right to have their own private armies, also known as militias.  Anyway, I don't care about Cuomo.  The people of New York can keep him, but I do hope all the conservatives will flee his state.  They are already in trouble financially, so I would like nothing better than to see them go completely bankrupt, and lose Congressional representation as their population declines.  To all extreme conservatives in New York, I personally invite you to move to Dixie.  We would love to have you. 

[nebula]

I read what he actually said and there is a slight misrepresentation here.

 

1. He said "pro-assault gun" not "pro-guns". Slight difference and a sentiment most people agree with...who needs a gun the fires 500 rounds a second? (I own three guns before anyone claims I am anti-gun).

 

2. Although not worded very well, I think he is talking about the fringe elements that are keeping his state and the country in gridlock. People obsessed with abortions, sexual behaviour of private citizens and guns rather than the bigger picture of running the country and fixing problems.

 

Let's see:

 

“It’s more about extreme Republicans versus moderate Republicans,” ....

“Their problem is not me and the Democrats; their problem is themselves. Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.”

 

 

In other words, the good guys are the RINOs and the bad guys are the true Conservatives.

 

Translation: If you believe abortion is murder, know the difference between an assault weapon and a rifle and believe people have the right to own these for self-protection, and you believe what the Scriptures say about same-sex sexual relations, the you are the greatest evil on the planet and need to be exterminated.

 

 

Sigh. so much for this nation our forefathers faught and died for.

[JustinM]

 

 

I read what he actually said and there is a slight misrepresentation here.

 

1. He said "pro-assault gun" not "pro-guns". Slight difference and a sentiment most people agree with...who needs a gun the fires 500 rounds a second? (I own three guns before anyone claims I am anti-gun).

 

2. Although not worded very well, I think he is talking about the fringe elements that are keeping his state and the country in gridlock. People obsessed with abortions, sexual behaviour of private citizens and guns rather than the bigger picture of running the country and fixing problems.

a gun that fires 500 rounds a second?  I only know of one...  and it only holds about 50 rounds at most.

 

an AR-15 only fires about 12 to 15 fully automatic and they are illegal in all states without a special machine gun weapons permit.....   and that's nearly impossible to get.

 

 

Oh, btw, I don't disagree with people not needing machine guns, but what he calls an assault gun isn't a machine gun......   and banning clips over 7 rounds is just silly.

 

 

I said 500 rounds per second as a joke. Point being I don't think anyone needs to own machines guns or other such types of weapons.

 

Regardless I just wanted to correct the slight mischaracterization of what he said.

 

I don't care what you think I need, my needs aren't your business.

 

As for Cuomo, the voters got who they wanted, what was it PBHO said after he was elected?  Oh yeah. . ."Elections have consequences."

[MrsRational]

 

 

 

I read what he actually said and there is a slight misrepresentation here.

 

1. He said "pro-assault gun" not "pro-guns". Slight difference and a sentiment most people agree with...who needs a gun the fires 500 rounds a second? (I own three guns before anyone claims I am anti-gun).

 

2. Although not worded very well, I think he is talking about the fringe elements that are keeping his state and the country in gridlock. People obsessed with abortions, sexual behaviour of private citizens and guns rather than the bigger picture of running the country and fixing problems.

a gun that fires 500 rounds a second?  I only know of one...  and it only holds about 50 rounds at most.

 

an AR-15 only fires about 12 to 15 fully automatic and they are illegal in all states without a special machine gun weapons permit.....   and that's nearly impossible to get.

 

 

Oh, btw, I don't disagree with people not needing machine guns, but what he calls an assault gun isn't a machine gun......   and banning clips over 7 rounds is just silly.

 

 

I said 500 rounds per second as a joke. Point being I don't think anyone needs to own machines guns or other such types of weapons.

 

Regardless I just wanted to correct the slight mischaracterization of what he said.

 

I don't care what you think I need, my needs aren't your business.

 

As for Cuomo, the voters got who they wanted, what was it PBHO said after he was elected?  Oh yeah. . ."Elections have consequences."

 

 

It's a public forum and I am allowed to participate as much as you are. Part of living in a society is we all have an interest in the common good and sometimes that involves a little compromise. I think knowing my neighbour isn't both unhinged and owning a machine gun is a good thing. I enjoy target shooting and would never deny a rational person the right to own guns but there have to be limits.

[Guest Butero]

He wasn't saying you can't participate in a discussion.  He was giving his opinion that it is nobody's business what kind of weapons he has, and I agree.  In Canada, the situation is different.  I don't believe there is anything in the Canadian Constitution guaranteeing a right to bear arms, but there is such a right in the American Constitution.  Gun control laws are unconstitutional, and none should be allowed to stand.  If I want to have machine guns, flame throwers, even a canon or a tank in my front yard, that should be my right.