“Confiscation could be an option”
This is one sure way to know you’re living in a post-constitutional police state: when some bloated legacy pol believes it within his power — or the government’s power generally — to seize private property protected under the Bill of Rights simply because he doesn’t care for its aesthetics. In fact, even by floating the idea of confiscation of firearms, what the left is admitting here is that to them the Constitution is a dead letter, and that they are more concerned with protecting government from it than they are in upholding the rights of the individuals it is there to insure.
Repeating a lie doesn’t make the lie any more true, so let me once again add some truth to the “conversation” on gun control: a semi-automatic rifle is no more an “assault weapon” than a semi-automatic pistol — both using the same one squeeze, one shot platform; and a semi-automatic pistol is no more an “assault weapon” than a revolver.
Moreover, the second amendment isn’t about hunting. The Framers deemed all of us part of a militia — either ready or reserve — so in truth, a better legal argument can be made that by virtue of your being a citizen you be compelled to keep a firearm, than that some Democratic political scion has within his power the ability to confiscate firearms from private citizens who have broken no laws.
This ain’t Australia, Governor Cuomo. And the fact that you believe you have such power to be used at your whim shows you aren’t fit to serve the public.
One final irony: how many police wielding semi-automatic “assault weapons” in .223 Remington — the same kind of gun used by the CT shooter — is it going to take to go door to door in attempt to confiscate the property of erstwhile law abiding citizens? And what kind of resistance from a literal police state campaign will they be met with?
(h/t geoff b)
update: Looks like Cuomo didn’t check his Journolist for the latest “progressive” sneering points.