When looking at the pro-rights argument against the pro-control argument one needs to cut through the hyperbole and sensationalism with Occam’s razor.

Occam’s razor, for those of you who don’t know, is a term used in logic and problem solving.  Plainly put, Occam’s razor is the process in which, when you have two competing theories, the one that makes the least amount of assumptions is most likely the correct one.  By using the “razor” to cut away the most assumptions you are left with the correct answer.

To apply this to the gun debate, I argue that gun control, when cut to ribbons by the razor cannot stand.

The argument for the 2nd Amendment.

1. An armed people are a free people

That’s pretty much the only assumption that needs to be taken into consideration for the 2nd Amendment.  Freedom does not guarantee safety, it does not ensure absolute happiness, it only assumes that if people are armed they will be free so long as they remain so.

The argument for gun control requires a lot more assumptions to be made.

1. The 2nd Amendment is about hunting
2. The founding fathers didn’t know what weapons would be available in the future and wouldn’t have written the 2nd Amendment if they had
3. Gun control will stop criminals from getting guns
4. The government will never turn on its people
5. The police are enough to keep you safe
6. Criminals will follow gun laws
7. Shall not be infringed doesn’t mean that the 2nd Amendment can’t be infringed
8. Gun control only fails because we don’t have enough of it
9. Only the government needs guns, law abiding people don’t
10. Armed citizenry couldn’t stop tyranny

Those are just 10 assumptions that I have heard the gun control zealots use that come to mind.  I’m sure many of those reading this have heard even more.

The long and short of it is this, you have to make a LOT of assumptions in order to get on board with gun control while the 2nd Amendment only requires you to make 1 assumption.  And that assumption just seems so rational and has been proven in history that it boggles my mind that people still choose to deny it.

So the next time you find yourself in a war of words with some “enlightened” gun control advocate, don’t forget to bring your razor.

Since many politicians choose to ignore history and walk all over the Constitution, it is good to talk a look back and see where these radical notions of an armed society and liberty came from.

As I have long pointed out on this blog, the 2nd Amendment isn’t about shooting deer, it’s about shooting tyrants.  Our nation was FOUNDED on such a notion.  The only people who would throw off the chains of tyranny and then undercut the ability for future generations to do so would be tyrants themselves.  I do not view George Washington, Ben Franklin or Thomas Paine in this light and I wonder how today’s gun control zealots can twist the history of our founding so cockeyed that they would make tyrants of our founding fathers.

The Colonists during this time had petitioned the King, wrote to Parliament, and took all the peaceful avenues of redress that they could.  Finally, when their grievances were ignored, their property seized, taxes crippled them and they were denied the rights that their English cousins enjoyed they said ‘enough’.

Now, the gun control zealots like to mock American gun owners today by trying and marginalize the 2nd Amendment saying that when it was written they were talking about muskets and that muskets are the only thing that the 2nd Amendment protects.

Of course, that is like saying the 1st Amendment only protects a hand cranked, single page printing press.  But I digress.

The founding fathers were talking about muskets and early rifles.  Why?  Because those were the most advanced weapons of the day and with those weapons a nation was founded.

The colonists had equal, and in many cases,  superior firearms than that of the British.

The British standard issue rifle of the day was the Brown Bess

The Brown Bess was in production for almost 55 years before the start of the Revolution.  It, or one of its derivations  was in the hands of nearly every British redcoat during the war.  And talk about an “assault” weapon, the Brown Bess came with a bayonet 17 inches long, used when the British lines would literally assault the enemy position.

While the Americans where made up of militias and were less uniformed in their selection of firearms than those of their enemy, in some senses that gave the American the advantage.  The Colonists, by and large, brought their own firearms to the fight.  While many used derivatives of the Brown Bess, the Americans excelled at precision shooting with the Pennsylvania/Kentucky Long Rifle.  The reason for the accuracy of up to 400 yards was due to the rifling of the bore which made the round fly straighter.

If gun control advocates had their way, the Colonists would have needed to use bow and arrows against the British because using their rhetoric, “who needs to shoot something 400 yards away”.

While revolution should never be the first response, the opportunity to cast of chains of tyranny should be a viable option in order to preserve liberty.  As such, weapons are needed that are on par with those carried by said tyrants army.

If the Colonists were denied the use of arms equal or superior to that of the army of King George, then we might very well still be bending the knee to the Crown.

To limit the 2nd Amendment to something smaller than its intent (such as hunting or personal defense) is to limit the essence of American liberty and freedom.  The 2nd Amendment is the line in the sand, and if it is allowed to be brushed away then the freedom that we enjoy today will exist only by the whims of those in charge.

Let us stand resolute to ensure that the leaders of America serve and never rule.

The complete list can be found here: http://shtfplan.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Feinstein-Weapons-Ban.jpg

Not only is Feinstein looking to get the ball rolling on the slippery slope that is the complete removal of the 2nd Amendment from the Constitution, she has the hypocritical audacity to make sure that she and other elected officials are exempt from the legislation.

This type of aristocratic ”do as I say not as I do” bull is one of the things that found a bunch of colonists tossing off the yoke of British oppression some 200+ years ago.  We are not subjects to the whims of our elected officials, to be lorded over by those who believe that there are two America’s.  One in which the rules only apply to those who are not in power.

Where does Dianne Feinstein and her gun control cronies get off thinking that they can pass laws disarming the American people yet exempt themselves to laws they don’t care to follow?

That my friends, is TYRANNY.  And it is the reason we have the 2nd Amendment to begin with.  Who knows how many other laws that the Senator and her cadre of craven controlling con men wish to exempt themselves from once they disarm the people.

We must continue to fight to ensure that never happens lest we become a country of two America’s.  One in which those in power are exempt from the law and one in which those who are not must suffer under it.

But the man knows that bad smells are the least of his worries as he tries to go about his business finding bread or flour or rice for his family so they do not starve.  The regional warlord holds an iron grip on the food supply for the mans village and all the neighboring ones.  The warlord chooses who is allowed to eat what, he doles out the amounts yet for him and those who are willing and able to pay him off, they are above his edicts.

In this place, as in many places where tyrants rule, money softens the tyrants grip while it strangles those who cannot pay the rate.  To the poor and destitute he denies them food donations.  To new born babies he denies them formula.

He takes and takes and takes from his people, their choices, their money by adding new “taxes” time and again, and he will not let anyone pry the grip of power from his hands.  When a natural disaster hits his soldiers deny access to outside aid so that another group will not pose a threat to his power, yet his people die from the raiding by bandits in the aftermath.

The man has found some food and drink, it is small yet in this village you do not have a choice for the warlord does not care who goes hungry.

The man must hurry home now as it is late and he is of a different tribe than the warlord, his skin darker than he who rules.  The man hurries because of two threats he faces.  One is from the bandits that roam around his village looking to prey upon the hapless traveler.  He lives in a poor village and these bandits reap what others sow.

The other threat is worse for at least you can try and fight the bandits.  The warlords men swoop in like wraiths and what little freedom others in the land may have are denied those who live in the warlords region.  If he is caught by them he will be a victim of their oppression.  They will take his dignity by force.  The only hope is that they tire quickly of their sport and do not choose to punish him out of turn.

Tonight the man is not lucky.  A little ways from his hovel and his family the warlords reavers descend upon the man.  They demand to see his papers, demand he explain himself as to why he is there at that hour.  The man says he was simply getting food for his family.  The reavers are unconvinced.  They knock his parcels from his hand and throw him against a wall.  They tell him that if he moves he will be a dead man.

Their hands grope him and grab him.  They tear at pockets and pull at laces.  From the surrounding hovels the people watch.  Some hide quickly lest the reavers turn their wrath on them, others who believe and follow the warlord unquestioningly assume the man’s guilt and are happy to see the reavers stop at nothing in proving it.

The man hangs his head, sorrowful that he is treated in such a way.  He is thankful that he no longer has his gun.  The warlord decreed that they were to be illegal and that anyone other than his reavers or his gilded elite found having one would be tossed in his pits, not to see the light of day until decades pass.

After the reavers have had their fill of crushing the mans spirit and taking his pride, they give him a warning not to cause trouble and let him go.  The man picks up the little food he was carrying and continues on his way.

“Almost home” the man said to himself…almost.

The other kind of danger comes from the darkness.  A group of bandits armed with sticks and pipe, ooze from the shadows.  They demand the mans money and his food.  The man, thinking of his hungry family thinks to call the warlords men back but knows they would not make it in time and that the bandits would beat him all the more severe.

The man tries to rush past and almost makes it until he is knocked down and beaten.  His bones begin to break, blood begins to pour.  There are others who see this as well, but what can they do.  They are like the man, they have no way to stop the beating of these big numerous bandits.

When it is over, the food is gone and all his money.  The man continues his crawl home and hopes for luckier days.  That is all he can do because this is like under despotic rule.  This is life in New York City.

—————————————————————————————————————————————

As you can tell I changed some words like calling the outer boroughs a village and the city of New York a region.  I made Bloomberg’s title warlord and his police, reavers.  But this was to help you have an open mind about what life in New York is like.

Bloomberg’s war on food.  He limits the serving size of food even though that targets poorer people the most. Going so far as denying food donations to homeless shelters.

He has ordered hospitals to lock up baby formula and not to offer it to new mothers.

He did not allow the National Guard in the city after Hurricane Sandy to help quell the looting.

He fully supports “Stop and Frisk” which eliminates the 4th Amendment when walking in New York City.

He has all but eliminated the 2nd Amendment in the city, save for those with enough money or connections to circumvent his ban.  This leaves the law abiding defenseless against criminals.

This is life in New York.  You are not free to eat what you want, not free from unreasonable search and seizures, not free to have due process, not free to defend yourself with firearms and not free from tyranny.

I tell you this story because now that New York State has hopped on the Bloomberg crazy train with their draconian gun control, it is important to realize what the future of this country would look like if New York City was made the norm.

The line must be drawn there…no further.

Never had a colony broken away from its mother country.  It was a game changer and those that signed it were trail blazers.  As we look at the signing of the Declaration, perhaps through the fog of time we have lost perspective of what it actually did or says.

This wasn’t some Sunday afternoon folly perpetrating among some old biddies playing bridge.  This was an act of war, a declaration of rebellion and a call to arms.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Right of the People to alter or abolish it.  But this isn’t to be taken lightly, so that every time the government says something minor you disagree with you break out the torches and set DC aflame.  The Founding Fathers understood that this was a serious undertaking.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

But I ask you, how exactly can one to throw off such a government?  Only through the use of Arms.  For a a tyrannical government will not yeild to fair and honest elections, and the Peoples freedom of speech ends at the point of a the Governments rifle.

So, in understanding that they were forming a nation by overthrowing tyranny, the Founding Fathers realized that history may have need to repeat itself in the future.  And should it come again that:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

The people would have the means in which to enact such a separation.  The Declaration of Independence led directly to the need of enumerating the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in the Bill of Rights.

One cannot be free if one is not able to defend themselves from tyranny.

Now, some of you may think that MLK Jr wanting to carry a gun is incongruent with him being a non violent civil rights activist.  It’s not and here’s why; just because you preach non violence does not mean you need to be a sacrificial lamb to anyone who is going to harm you or your family.

Dr. King believed that through non-violence interaction with the government his dream of equality could be realized.  But he was not naive nor stupid and did not believe that non violence would protect him or his family from those with evil in their hearts.

So Martin Luther King Jr, a black Republican pastor who preached non violence and who had quantifiable reasons to be allowed to carry concealed (the multitude of death threats) was denied a permit.

If we allow gun control to force us to ask permission in order to exercise our rights, then we leave the door open for the government to say no.  And if Dr. King wasn’t good enough to get a concealed carry permit, then what hope do the rest of us have.

In a recent trend another person was beaten and thrown onto subway tracks, this time in Philadelphia.  Philly, I remind you is a den of anti-gun sentiment with Mayor Nutter leading the charge.  Hmmm…i wonder what could have helped this woman stop a larger more physically imposing male assailant from beating her and tossing her onto the subway tracks?  According to the gun control zealots it was better for her to nearly die than to have the ability to defend herself with a firearm.

A woman in New Jersey, one of the most restrictive states for the law abiding to get a firearm to defend themselves, was brutally stabbed repeatedly while she was with her baby inside a Bed Bath & Beyond.  Could a woman defend herself and her baby with a firearm against an attacker with a knife?  Gun Control zealots would in New Jersey would prefer you not find out.

In a Dallas Hardware Store, a clerk had his throat slashed and was beaten with a hammer and left for dead.  I wonder if the gun control zealots would think the perpatrator of this attack would be easily found if only his hammer was registered.

A woman had her face slashed at the Fayette Mall in Lexington KY.  I’m not sure how this happened because Fayette Mall lists as number 20 of their Code of Conduct that weapons are not allowed in the mall except by police officers.  This is not only a Gun Free Zone it is a Weapons Free Zone.  Of course, only the law abiding listen, so this group of slashers gets to have a pick of unarmed targets to attack.

Everyone of these situations occurred when a smaller, weaker, or outnumbered victim was violently attacked.  A gun in their hands would have been an equalizer to the roving animals of this world that walk upon two legs.

Yet, the gun control zealots see these four stories as a victory.  So some people got stabbed and were put into a hospital, a pretty girl has her face scarred for life, a man is beaten so badly he can’t even speak to the police to tell them what happened…none of the attackers got shot.  And at the end of the day that is what the Brady Campaign and Mayors Against Illegal Guns must want because every law that they have suggested, pushed for, and/or implemented creates a world where only criminals benefit.

Linn Country Sheriff Tim Mueller wrote a compelling letter to Vice President Biden, the head of Obama’s 2nd Amendment Hit Squad, eloquently stating his intentions should the federal government attempt to undermine the citizens right to keep and bear arms.

“In the wake of recent criminal events, politicians are attempting to exploit the deaths of innocent victims by advocating for laws that would prevent honest, law-abiding Americans from possessing certain firearms and ammunition magazines.”

“We are Americans.  We must not allow, nor shall we tolerate, the actions of criminals, no matter how heinous the crimes, to prompt politicians to enact laws that will infringe upon the liberties of responsible citizens who have broken no laws.”

“Any federal regulation enacted by Congress or by executive order of the president offending the constitutional rights of my citizens shall not be enforced by me or by my deputies, nor will I permit the enforcement of any unconstitutional regulations or orders by federal officers within the borders of Linn County, Oregon.”

“In summary, it is the position of this sheriff that I refuse to participate, or stand idly by, while my citizens are turned into criminals due to the unconstitutional actions of misguided politicians.”

This isn’t some whimsical note that some guy sent the administration.  This is a man, elected by his county as the highest ranking law enforcement officer in that county, saying not only that he doesn’t like unconstitutional laws, not only will he not enforce them, but that he will not stand idly by while the federal government tries to enforce them.

This Sheriff is willing to actively defend his people and their rights from the encroaching hand of a federal government drunk on it’s own highfalutin pomposity.

And it would appear he is not alone.  On top of states pushing legislation to arrest federal agents who attempt to impose unconstitutional federal laws in their states, a number of other Sheriffs across the country have followed Mueller’s lead and have vocally announced that they too will not betray their citizens by allowing unconstitutional laws to be enforced in their counties.

In Oregon for starters, 3 other sheriffs have joined Mueller to stand against tyranny.  Sheriffs Bishop, Zanni and Hensley have promised their citizens that they will stand up for them against any federal law that would see their liberty denied and their freedom curtailed.

Jackson County’s Sheriff, Denny Peyman has also come out and assured his citizens that he will not enforce the administrations attack on liberty. “My office will not comply with any federal actions which violate the United States Constitution or the Kentucky Constitution which I swore to uphold.”  He considers it “a moral obligation,” and he’s got “a team of attorneys to step up with me if necessary.”

Pine County Sheriff Robin Cole of Minnesota has joined the wave for freedom by voicing his opposition saying  he would consider any new federal regulation on guns to be illegal and would “refuse to carry it out.”

These are just a few in the avalanche of Sheriffs standing up for their counties and opposing tyranny.

It is a good first step.  If you live in a county where one of these Davids is standing up to Goliath, let them know how appreciative.  If your Sheriff hasn’t voiced an opinion or is willing to let your constitutional rights be ravaged by a insatiable federal meat grinder, contact them and let them know where you stand.

With enough voices joining in, the walls of Obama’s gun grabbing regime will crumble beneath our shout.

I think that for every New York State, that pushes senseless and ineffective measures under the auspices of reducing gun violence, you will have a half dozen states like Texas and Wyoming who seek to strengthen their gun rights.  States that are going so far as arresting federal agents who try and enforce federally backed infringements to the 2nd Amendment.

There will be a divide in the States over gun rights but it is far from evenly split and oddly enough does not necessarily follow the traditional red/blue dichotomy.

Sure, when someone thinks of New England and the West Coast they think of a bloc of gun grabbing zealot states who will stop at nothing to infringe upon the 2nd Amendment rights of its citizens but that is not always the case.

For instance, think of Vermont.  Pretty blue when it votes, but it has one of the best understandings of what the 2nd Amendment means and holds almost no restrictions therein.  They are not going to follow New York’s lead. Also, I don’t see New Hampshire, the live free or die state, lining up to follow the Empire State.

So while the exploitation of dead children and the media driven sensationalism and hysteria might draw some New England states away from liberty, it is not as clearly defined as our national elections would have one believe.

The same can be said for the Pacific Northwest.  While the machinations of Californian politicians look to further hamstring the 2nd Amendment in Sacramento, the gun grabbing fever looks to be quarantined there and unlikely to spread.  Though Washington and Oregon have streaks of blue come national election time, on a state level they tend to lean Libertarian and their gun laws reflect it.

If the North East and the West Coast are where gun control support is supposed to be at its greatest then I feel a little better about the whole thing.  Because it is plain to see that in truth, only a few radical rogue politicians are pushing for it.  Outside of those regimes, you have neighboring states that will either do nothing and enjoy the 2nd Amendment freedoms their currently have, or you will get states that will actively move to defend the right to keep and bear arms such as the entire Midwest.

South Dakota, Idaho, Arizona, Texas, Wyoming, and Tennessee all have legislation being put forth to strengthen gun rights for its citizens in order to protect them from both criminals and an overreaching infringing federal government.

Not to mention that Utah, Montana and Alaska have all ready passed the Firearm Freedom Act with AZ, ID, WY and SD and doesn’t include the 25 other states that have introduced the Act.

My prediction is as follows.  As some states in decline begin to seize more and more personal liberties through abusive taxes and infringing upon rights, people will begin to emigrate from them to places that are more free.

Is it a coincidence that states that value the 2nd Amendment rights also have the lowest personal income taxes and the most freedom overall?  Whereas California and New York crush not only the rights of the people but also their livelihood.

Obama and his collaborators like to make it appear as if there is a wave of gun control fever sweeping the nation when in fact there are only a few radical and opportunistic puppets that have followed his lead.

In the elections that come in the next few years, be they state or federal, we must remind them that indeed a wave is coming, it will be carrying freedom and liberty with such force that it will drown the ambition of tyrants.

Why do I call this exploitation and not a reasoned response to a tragedy?  Simple.  If this was a valid response to the Sandy Hook tragedy then SOME measure of this bill would have stopped the tragedy from happening in the first place if it had been enacted in Connecticut.

But no, the bill is a wish list for gun control zealots chock full of infringements that would not have been able to pass if not augmented with the blood of dead children due to sensationalized hysteria of the liberal 24 hour news cycle.

So what does this bill, ridiculously named the NY SAFE act, do?  For starters, the moment it is signed all magazines that can hold more than 7 bullets are made illegal.  Magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds and manufactured before 1994, which are currently legal, would have to be turned over to authorities or sold out of state within one year. If a magazine has a capacity between eight and 10, it would have to be retrofitted to only hold seven rounds.

Apparently it’s just a numbers game.  Cuomo has been spouting off saying “No one needs 10 rounds to kill a deer”.  Once again this shows the ignorance of gun grabbers who falsely believe that the 2nd Amendment has anything to do with hunting.

The Second Amendment isn’t about shooting deer, it’s about shooting tyrants.

Cuomo unwittingly though, revealed himself for the craven gun grabbing zealot that he is with that reasoning.  If shooting deer is going to be the litmus test for magazines then it allows for further restrictions.  Of the hunters I know, it only takes one shot to kill a deer.  But for all the double barreled shotgun users out there Cuomo might allow 2 rounds.  So this slippery slope of magazine restrictions based on deer hunting opens the door to limit magazines to 2 rounds.

Why wouldn’t this stop the Sandy Hook massacre?  A few reasons, since the school was a gun free zone full of women and children, even if the shooter had to stop and reload after 7 magazines, no one was going to use that time to return fire on him, nor were they going to charge and tackle him to the ground.

Funny how Cuomo and other gun control zealots like to dismiss gun owners as watching too many movies because they are willing to shoot back at an armed assailant, yet they propose that it is more logical that people pull a Batman and go hand to hand commando in the moments between the shooters reloading.

The SAFE Act further abolishes the NYS lifetime permit and now will be needed to be renewed every 5 years.  Not only is this a pointless hassle for law abiding gun owners, it also opens up the ability for the issuing body to say no, on a whim, to someone who has had their license issued by a more gun friendly issuer.  New York is a may issue state after all, and anytime you have to ask to exercise your right you play roulette with whether or not you will be denied.  On top of that there is the ability to make the fees for the permit cost prohibited for the working man, as such only the rich and privileged will be able to afford one.

Why wouldn’t this stop the Sandy Hook massacre?  Because the shooter didn’t have a license to carry in the first place and as a rule criminals don’t follow the law to begin with.

Within one year, the state will set up an instant background check system for all ammunition purchases. Law enforcement would be alerted to large purchases of ammunition.  Pointless invasion of privacy and a hassle to gun owners who may blow through a thousand rounds every time they go to the range.  Plus, where will the money come to cover yet another New York bureaucracy?  Most likely a bullet tax.

Why wouldn’t this stop the Sandy Hook massacre?  The shooter stole the guns AND the bullets.

Then there is the granddaddy of them all.  The so called “assault” weapons ban.  Assault weapons — defined as any rifle with a “military style” feature, such as a bayonet or a telescoping stock — that are currently owned would be grandfathered and would have to be registered with the state.  It is said that registering is the first step to confiscation.  The bill was written in such a way to make just that happen. The rifles will be grandfathered only for you and cannot be transferred, EVER.  So even when you die the guns must be turned over to the state to be destroyed.  That is CONFISCATION.  It’s just a long con.  Within one generation, these weapons will be completely gone in the hands of the law abiding citizens in New York.  Criminals of course will get them easily. I mean, the war on drugs hasn’t stopped people from getting high, why would the war on guns stop criminals from getting theirs?

Why wouldn’t this stop the Sandy Hook massacre? The shooter STOLE the guns and besides he primarily used a pair of pistols.  You are more likely to be killed by being beaten to death by an attackers bare hands than you are from any type of rifle.

Furthermore, Cuomo showed his true colors by waiving the 3 day aging period for bills, set up in order to give the public the right to be heard between when a bill is presented and when it is voted on.  This was done directly in order to silence people who support the 2nd Amendment from informing their legislators of their displeasure with the bill.

That’s not conjecture, the gun grabbing zealots actually SAID SO directly. Assemblywoman Ellen Jaffee, D-Suffern, Rockland County, said a quick vote was prudent, saying she was concerned that a delay could lead to less stringent regulations.

“I’m concerned that the anti-gun-safety lobbyists would have influence in a way where we would lose the opportunity to move forward with gun safety,” she said.

Now, I don’t know what any of this bill has to do with gun safety, but the intention on her and Cuomo’s part is clear; RAM this unconstitutional bill down the throats of New Yorkers and get it signed before anyone realizes just what is going on.

Weak willed Republicans in the Republican controlled Senate rolled over quickly enough since their constituents didn’t have the time to have their voices heard and the Democrat controlled Assembly are chomping at the bit to follow suit.

Even the addition of a measure to protect the privacy of gun owners was lukewarm at best.  A gun owner can request that their information remain private but it is up the issuing authority whether to allow it to be so.  This way they can keep the information of police and politicians private while legally leaving the common citizen flapping in the wind.

From top to tail this bill is disgusting and pathetic.  Born of political opportunism and the exploitation of dead children.  Those who crafted it and are glad to have the Sandy Hook Tragedy happen in order to press their agenda should be ashamed of themselves.  So too should those who have given lip service to the 2nd Amendment only to roll over so easily in the name of political expediency and feel good legislation.

Cuomo even has the gall to say that this isn’t an attack on law abiding gun owners.  ”We’re not looking to demonize gun owners,” Cuomo said. “Gun owners have done nothing wrong.”  Yet his legislation does nothing but harass and infringe upon the rights of  gun owners in New York.

At least there are a few New York State Senators who are willing to call a spade a spade. Senators such as Greg Ball, R-Patterson, Putnam County who said on the Senate Floor during the vote, “We haven’t saved any lives tonight except for one — the political life of a governor who wants to be president.”

For want of political ambition, liberty dies in New York and not a single child will be safer.