I thought he was going to reach into his pocket and pull out a pistol. Never mind. It’s a shame New York State Senator Jim Tedisco’s speech didn’t have any effect on the Empire State’s lawmakers; they went ahead and enacted the country’s most egregious civilian disarmament program since gun control began (in shame) in post-Civil War America.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

37 COMMENTS

  1. Is this proof that the NY state senate GOP did, in fact, have an opportunity to read and understand what they were voting on?

    • The senate had at least 20 minutes. They may have been able to give it a quick once over, but I doubt many had time to digest it. I think they started stating their reason for voting which way they did at about 10:50ish pm and the voted a little before 11:20 pm, if I remember correctly.

      This video is from the Assembly the next day, and had you listened to the whole thing, many aspects of the legislation were inconsistent with other provisions, or simply unclear, and this was 12 hours later. To say it is a poorly written bill would be an understatement. They were just trying to cram that sucker through.

  2. People like him are entertainment for the evil parasites of government, like watching the thin but gutsy kid on the playground stand up to a bully and laughing as he gets his butt kicked.

  3. i appreciate his stand, i really do – but that was a singularly awkward and ineloquent speech.

  4. Not only that, but they did it in the cover of night and deliberately eliminated public comment period. Cuomo authorized eliminating the 3 day period. I never heard so many questions being answered with “I think…” when asked to clarify the legislation.

    Cuomo will use this as his trumpet in his future political endeavors.

    This is shameful, disgusting, and dishonorable. NY, you know not what you’ve done.

    • Cuomo will use this as his trumpet in his future political endeavors.

      Hopefully playback of his State of the State rant will be an effective counter, much like Howard Dean’s scream.

  5. I thought he was reaching into his pocket for the same thing when I watched it the first time around. Part of me was actually hoping that’s what he was reaching into his pocket for, just to see all the pant wetting from across the aisle.

    NY Sens. Greg Ball and Kathy Marchione, and NY Assemblymen Steve McLaughlin and Pete Lopez all made great points and “get it” as well. Greg Ball was pissed. You could tell he owns some now illegal magazines to go with his now required to be registered rifles.

  7. I really appreciate the stand he took, but gun-grabbers won’t let facts get in the way of their feel-good legislation.

  8. Anyone s&w send him a thank you for trying note yet he may not have won but he did try to fight and I let him know it was appreciated.

  9. Folks from New York…these are your ELECTED officials doing this to you. How on earth politicians keep getting re elected time and time again will forever baffle me.

    • Apparently you are unaware of the goliath called New York City, it’s adoring surrounding counties and the population contained within? There philosophy on life is quite different from the rest of the State.

    • It annoys me to see people saying “New Yorkers, this is what you elected.” No, this is what New York City and its commuter suburbs elected. More than two thirds of the population of New York State lives in the 12 counties that make up NYC and its suburbs (I list them: New York, Bronx, Queens, Kings, Richmond, Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, Rockland, Orange, Duchess, Putnam). The other 52 counties of New York are far different. Those of us who live outside the NYC metro area would like to see the city and all its politicians sink into the sea, or at least become a new state. We upstate people haven’t got a chance against the bozos running the show. I pray for the day when I will never have to set foot in NYC again, but I am chained to a job…

      • I agree with almost everything you said but not everyone in NYC is anti. There are so few of us in the city that can make a difference.

  10. Folks from New York…these are your ELECTED officials doing this to you. How on earth politicians keep getting re-elected time and time again will forever baffle me.

    • Fleeing your home because your government is oppressive. That’s the answer, is it? Become a refugee? If everyone did that, there’d eventually be no place to flee to. What do you do then? What do you do when tyranny is everywhere.

      New York is their home. If you aren’t willing to stay and fight for your own home, and your liberty at home, then you’re a coward. Fighting doesn’t mean you’re going to win; but by fleeing, you’re assured of a loss.

  11. I hate to say it again but their “Legislators and Reps” are of their population. Apparently, New Yorker wanted, what they have. If I were the minority gun owner in NY, I would already have the house up for sale and resumes in the mail.

    • +1
      I like this guy. There is power in the truth he speaks, that power would be immense if anyone there would actually listen to him. I would like to have seen a camera shot of the crowd there. Was anyone paying any attention to what was being said?

  13. NYC and its surrounding counties control the state. They’re banning normal magazines and AR’s for the masses, not for the private army of Mayor Bloomberg and Manhattan. NYC is a paper-trades-growing plantation with a hundred thousand financial Massas and 9 million field hands. The Massas have interest neither in giving up their power nor in getting shot, so NY gun confiscation is not some surprise tactic. The Massas like guns. They just like them in the hands of employees they can fire and disarm at will, much like General McChrystals take on semi-auto relatively-small-bore rifles. The commercial powers of NYC under Mayor Fernando Wood seriously considered seceding from the Union in order to keep the profits on the southern cotton trade. Subsequent city leaders rightly recognized that formal secession was a quaint and needless waste of ink. Why secede when you can just buy up the southern commodity trade later, control the Fed, and put your worst slaves on a national-taxpayer dole? NYC complains that it pays more in taxes than it receives, which sounds credible until you realize why they pay more in taxes: First they skim the national income through financial concentration and fees. Well of course they pay more taxes. They take their gain on the front end, not the back-end handouts.

    • just thinkin out loud here… what if someone were to make a “viral” (actually takes off millions of veiws etc.)video convincing gun owners across the state (or nat.) not to pay their state tax for one year in protest? what would the consequences be? the i.r.s would certainly be too overwhelmed to “deal” with everyone. would they turn the mil on everyone, turn in ur assault weapon! n pay your tax or else! is it sedition to think out loud on this line?

    • I like the cut of your jib, sir. That looked like a rant but stank of the truth, and I probably learned 5 things I never knew before.

      Seriously, you should consider how to expand on the ties to modern-day 2A issues and submit it as a full article to TTAG. That would rock.

      • It felt like a rant, if a well-informed one. I should catch up on my CLE and production writing before getting more caught up in this stuff. Yet it’s true, that the disarmament of the non-criminal civilian gets my blood up.

        • The uninterrupted block of text was another rant-like characteristic. I could practically hear you panting for breath by the end. 🙂

  14. It’s good that he stood up and told the truth. Now he needs to have his colleagues arrested for treason.

  15. “New Yorkers have the government they deserve.”

    I read that frequently. This man is a New Yorker. Is this the government HE deserves? Is he not doing what he can to avert disasterous infringments on the liberties of New Yorkers?

    He’s not the only one in New York that fights for liberty and decency. They are the minority; but to say that they don’t deserve liberty because they are the unfortunate victims of the tyranny of the majority is–I think–particularly mean-spirited, unsypathetic, and–frankly–narrow-minded.

    Now, I’m not trying to insult or belittle those of you who have made these statements in the past. What I want to do is get to you look at these problem states (New York, California, Hawai’i, Illinois, Massachusetts) and their residents through a different lense. They don’t deserve tyranny. They don’t.

    • I’ll concede that many New Yorkers are idiots and have exactly the government they want … I’m seeing a lot of generalizations though. It’s not right. That isn’t “New Yorkers”–which implies all–but “many New Yorkers.”

  17. We have 33,000 gun deaths in this country every year. Ten times the rate of any other western country-yet our other rates of criminal violence are nearly the same as these other western countries. Spousal murder, relationship murder, suicide, accidental death by adults and children are rampant. The reason for this tragic state of affairs is simple-the more guns,the more DEADLY those guns and the more easily accessible those guns are the more gun deaths will result. Guns need to be regulated as a public health issue-just like automobiles, tobacco and alcohol-no one is advocating the prohibition of gun ownership. That would be insanity.
    Why can’t guns be reasonably regulated? Unfortunately,the NRA is a superb propaganda machine that has motivated its members by the use of constant fear tactics to vote solely on the single issue of guns. In this manner the NRA has been able to bully our elected officials from passing reasonable gun control legislation that a majority of voters want.

  18. Get your stats straight! There are not 33,000 murders committed with firearms in this country and that is the only attributable reason that would count. In addition, if you look at how many murders are committed with hammers, screw drivers, kitchen knives, hands, cars, pipes et al, your logic would require all of the above be regulated as well but you don’t mention them because you don’t have a personal and irrational aversion to those “things”.Get this straight; the Second Amendment defines a pre-existent right-not a state extended privilege!

    • I did not say there were 33,000 murders. I said there were 33,000 gun deaths.
      How many screw driver driver deaths were there in the US last year? How many deaths from hammers?
      Now if you want to talk about cars specifically then I can tell you that there were about 34,000 motor vehicle deaths in the US last year. A few years ago annual motor vehicle deaths were in excess of 55,000 per year. Somehow we have managed to reduce that number significantly to 34,000 even while the number of vehicles and miles driven have increased significantly. How? By government mandates making cars safer and laws that control problem drivers. We did not do this by taking the right to own a vehicle away. Reasonable and sensible regulations of guns and the people who are allowed to buy and possess them could have a significant reduction in the number of gun deaths. What other product is sold to the general public in this country that causes such wholesale slaughter of people and is not regulated? You have a right to have a gun for your own self defense if you think that is what you need. You do not have a right to own nor the need for a military assault weapon. If you buy a gun then it should be manufactured and delivered with enough safety devices to prevent an unauthorized use or an accidental death.

  19. ‘What it’s like to carry a gun.’
    I went to a Christmas party in upstate, New York on a Saturday night and like many other Americans I spent most of the time discussing gun control in America with friends. The evil incident in Connecticut has sparked a debate that will not die.
    My entire adult life I have been a registered Republican and I have almost always argued from the right. However, when it comes to the subject of handguns possessed and carried by non-law enforcement civilians I just cannot agree with my friends on the right.
    I feel that I am as qualified to speak on the subject as anyone else; after all, I have legally owned and carried handguns in New York State for 26 years.
    I grew up in New York City, I joined the NYPD at the age of 20 and I have stared down the barrel of a gun several times.
    I have been shot at and I have also fired my gun in self-defense, but in the line of duty.
    I now carry an New York Carry Pistol Permit as a retired law enforcement officer.
    I know what it’s like to carry a gun and not to carry a gun. I have heard arguments and stories of legal gun owners successfully defending their property and their lives, but I have also heard of more tragic stories, like the one last Friday.
    Adam Lanza was able to access his mother’s legally owned guns and commit this heinous act.
    That is the bottom line. Every legally possessed gun in America cannot be properly secured. There will be guns accessed by children.
    I feel that we have to take an honest look at the laws in this country for the sake of our children. Many people want to own and carry guns because it gives them a feeling of power.
    Most will not admit this, but it’s true. When someone is carrying a gun, they act differently. They face a situation, sometimes escalating it, instead of avoiding it.
    When I fired my gun in 1992 in self-defense, I was off-duty. It was after I ran down two thugs who had just robbed a store in Queens. They turned and tried to shoot me. If I did not have my gun that day, I would have never run after them and they would have gotten away. No one would have fired any guns that day.
    On February 26, 2012, Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by George Zimmerman in Sanford, Fla. No matter what you believe happened that night, if Zimmerman did not have a gun, Trayvon Martin would be alive today.
    As a father, who was heartbroken after hearing about the Connecticut killing of those innocent children, I feel I have to be honest about how I feel, even if it means disagreeing with friends.

  20. Guns being stored securely, safely, and sold to honest, trained citizens is what we need. Adams mother needed a gunsafe, not to be told how many bullets can be put into a magazine. That just isn’t going to save any lives. The only thing that will save lives are guns being inaccessible to kids, nutjobs, and criminals. If we can figure out how to do that without ‘impeding the right to bear arms’ then we will truly accomplish something meaningful. Until then, we are wasting time and money.

    My wife and I live in Hawaii. When we were forced to take a hand gun safety class to purchase a handgun we were a little annoyed. She’s a former correctional officer and I have volunteered on the range with the Boy Scouts for years and helped thousands of scouts get their merit badges. The price of the class was really what got me, it was a hundred and thirty dollars each at the time. However, I gotta admit, I learned a lot in that class and I am glad to have taken it. The finger printing and background check didn’t bother me, nor did all the paperwork. The one improvement I think could really make a difference would be to require proof of a lockable container that the gun is kept in. These idiots with their ideas about what guns to ban and how many bullets to put in them are simply on the wrong track and not going to accomplish anything. Every gun is deadly, every bullet is deadly, all should be respected and locked up, period ….

  21. JOHN HOWARD: Former Conservative Prime Minister of Australia on Gun Control
    IT is for Americans and their elected representatives to determine the right response to President Obama’s proposals on gun control. I wouldn’t presume to lecture Americans on the subject. I can, however, describe what I, as prime minister of Australia, did to curb gun violence following a horrific massacre 17 years ago in the hope that it will contribute constructively to the debate in the United States.
    I was elected prime minister in early 1996, leading a center-right coalition. Virtually every nonurban electoral district in the country — where gun ownership was higher than elsewhere — sent a member of my coalition to Parliament.
    Six weeks later, on April 28, 1996, Martin Bryant, a psychologically disturbed man, used a semiautomatic Armalite rifle and a semiautomatic SKS assault weapon to kill 35 people in a murderous rampage in Port Arthur, Tasmania.
    After this wanton slaughter, I knew that I had to use the authority of my office to curb the possession and use of the type of weapons that killed 35 innocent people. I also knew it wouldn’t be easy.
    Our challenges were different from America’s. Australia is an even more intensely urban society, with close to 60 percent of our people living in large cities. Our gun lobby isn’t as powerful or well-financed as the National Rifle Association in the United States. Australia, correctly in my view, does not have a Bill of Rights, so our legislatures have more say than America’s over many issues of individual rights, and our courts have less control. Also, we have no constitutional right to bear arms. (After all, the British granted us nationhood peacefully; the United States had to fight for it.)
    Because Australia is a federation of states, the national government has no control over gun ownership, sale or use, beyond controlling imports. Given our decentralized system of government, I could reduce the number of dangerous firearms only by persuading the states to enact uniform laws totally prohibiting the ownership, possession and sale of all automatic and semiautomatic weapons while the national government banned the importation of such weapons.
    To make this plan work, there had to be a federally financed gun buyback scheme. Ultimately, the cost of the buyback was met by a special one-off tax imposed on all Australians. This required new legislation and was widely accepted across the political spectrum. Almost 700,000 guns were bought back and destroyed — the equivalent of 40 million guns in the United States.
    City dwellers supported our plan, but there was strong resistance by some in rural Australia. Many farmers resented being told to surrender weapons they had used safely all of their lives. Penalizing decent, law-abiding citizens because of the criminal behavior of others seemed unfair. Many of them had been lifelong supporters of my coalition and felt bewildered and betrayed by these new laws. I understood their misgivings. Yet I felt there was no alternative.
    The fundamental problem was the ready availability of high-powered weapons, which enabled people to convert their murderous impulses into mass killing. Certainly, shortcomings in treating mental illness and the harmful influence of violent video games and movies may have played a role. But nothing trumps easy access to a gun. It is easier to kill 10 people with a gun than with a knife.
    Passing gun-control laws was a major challenge for my coalition partner: the rural, conservative National Party. All of its members held seats in nonurban areas. It was also very hard for the state government of Queensland, in Australia’s northeast, where the National Party was dominant, and where the majority of the population was rural.
    The leaders of the National Party, as well as the premier of Queensland, courageously supported my government’s decision, despite the electoral pain it caused them. Within a year, a new populist and conservative political party, the One Nation Party, emerged and took many votes from our coalition in subsequent state and federal elections; one of its key policies was the reversal of the gun laws.
    For a time, it seemed that certain states might refuse to enact the ban. But I made clear that my government was willing to hold a nationwide referendum to alter the Australian Constitution and give the federal government constitutional power over guns. Such a referendum would have been expensive and divisive, but it would have passed. And all state governments knew this.
    In the end, we won the battle to change gun laws because there was majority support across Australia for banning certain weapons. And today, there is a wide consensus that our 1996 reforms not only reduced the gun-related homicide rate, but also the suicide rate. The Australian Institute of Criminology found that gun-related murders and suicides fell sharply after 1996. The American Law and Economics Review found that our gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides by 74 percent. In the 18 years before the 1996 reforms, Australia suffered 13 gun massacres — each with more than four victims — causing a total of 102 deaths. There has not been a single massacre in that category since 1996.
    Few Australians would deny that their country is safer today as a consequence of gun control.

Comments are closed.