From the CCRKBA . . .
While anti-gun politicians exploit the mass shooting at a Buffalo, New York supermarket to demand stricter gun laws, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said such tragedies might be averted or stopped if New York state law allowed more people to exercise their right to carry.
“New York politicians want tougher gun laws in a state that already has some of the toughest laws in the country,” CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb observed. “Yet those laws did not prevent what happened Saturday, and never will. New York’s current gun control laws make it difficult to impossible for law-abiding citizens of all races to obtain carry permits. Apparently the shooter staked out this particular market, because he knew there would be no resistance to what is a despicable hate crime.
“To suggest stricter anti-gun-rights laws are the answer to such an evil act is absurd,” he continued. “Instead of making it possible and affordable for average citizens to obtain carry permits for personal protection, New York authorities have stubbornly maintained a permit system that reeks of political favoritism, demagoguery and elitism. It is no wonder this system is now facing a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that we hope will overturn the current law.
“Every citizen, regardless of ethnicity or economic condition, deserves better than they’ve gotten from lawmakers in Albany for generations,” Gottlieb stated. “The victims in Buffalo had no chance at all. It is deplorable that the only idea from Gov. Kathy Hochul is to ask for even more restrictions on New York gun owners, and to suggest more gun control on a national scale. That’s not a plan, it’s the perpetuation of an already failed strategy disguised as a plan, and anyone with an ounce of common sense knows it.
“Now Joe Biden has rushed to Buffalo to tell people ‘we can keep assault weapons off the street’,” he noted. “The suspect passed a background check and the rifle was purchased legally, but it was altered illegally after the sale. Instead of blaming guns, maybe Biden can explain how all of the warning signs about this suspect were apparently ignored. The time has come for a new, and significantly different strategy.
“In the past,” Gottlieb said, “Biden has advocated bans on semi-auto rifles and 9mm pistols. That’s also not a solution because it attaches blame to guns instead of the people who misuse them. At a time when we need to bring Americans together against these unspeakable crimes, Biden and his fellow Democrats always find a way to divide us over guns. This is a time for sound judgment, not sound bites. It’s too bad anti-gun Democrats have chosen to not be the adults in the room.
“Half of the states have adopted permitless carry to make it possible for citizens like the ones murdered in Buffalo to fight back,” he added. “It never occurs to politicians such as Hochul or Biden that they have been wrong on gun rights all along. But they have been disastrously wrong, and the proof is the police tape around the Tops supermarket in Buffalo.”
In before the usual suspects blame neighboring states for not signing on to the suicide pact of terrible policies.
The problem isn’t neighboring states. The problem is the suicide pact of terrible policies.
Always found it funny that most of the guns from the other states were straw purchases or stolen to begin with and never mentioned and rarely pursued by law enforcement (looking at you ATF).
By now Gottlieb and everyone else should know trying to reason with Gun Control zealots does not work. Any attempt to reason with Gun Control zealots only serves to provide standing for Gun Control which history confirms is an agenda rooted in racism and genocide. A despicable. agenda that should never be reasoned with anymore than the grand wizard of the democRat Party kkk or the german nazi party should be reasoned with.
Until Gun Control is properly defined by its roots in racism and genocide gullible knee jerk well meaning people will continue to fall for it hook, line and sinker.
Every Law on the books in New York would have stopped the crime had they been properly applied. Especially their RED Flag Legislation. As much of a Dark Hole as Red Flag Legislation has the potential to be. In this case it wasn’t applied even after this Scumbag threatened to shoot up a school. New York Law Enforcement, Prosecutors and the School District in question made the decision to not seek a warrant. Simply because the the Scumbag said he was only joking. Turns out the jokes on them and 10 people are dead because of it. Whether due to maleficence or purposefully those who had the opportunity to prevent this Murderer from being able to legally purchase a firearm chose not to. You get the Government You Vote For and all the consequences that come with it.
The blame is limited due to circumstances, but they’re blaming Pennsylvania for not banning standard magazines.
Criminals will be criminals
Well said.
If people would stop being afraid of “Soviet Psychiatry” coming to the United States, and go back to locking up the mentally Disturbed, as we used to do so in this country. The U. S. would be a little safer place to live in. We used to force people to get treatment. Now we allow mentally ill people to urinate and defecate in public.
And say they have the right to do so.
Not only have these killers been interviewed by the local police or the FBI prior to their mass shootings. But they were also taken to mental evaluation centers. And then allowed to leave after a very short stay.
It doesn’t have to be a gun. The mentally ill have used automobiles to run over hundreds of people. Or stabbed dozens in a single attack. And yet the so-called “smartest people” in the room refuse the lock up these mentally ill people.
Some people need to be forced to behave themselves. Because they are unwilling or are incapable of self-control.
At least in the free states you can have access to guns and kill these people outright. When they lose self-control.
This Buffalo New York shooter was certainly a racist. But he was also a mentally ill one.
The gun grabbers can’t understand a word of that. And, if they could, they would refuse to understand. Hoplophobes are hoplophobic, and like any other irrational fear, you cannot address their fear.
It isn’t the hoplophobes we need to be talking to. It’s the voters. We need a lot more people talking to kinfolk, neighbors, relatives, and work mates. We need to persuade a lot more people to purchase firearms, and to be prepared to use them. And, that includes all demographics. It pleases me to see so many women, blacks, black women, Asians, Hispanics, and whatever other groups are standing up, and taking back their rights.
Make something illegal or near impossible to get in one state, we all know there are fifty six more to visit to gat what you want. Better than Alice’s Restaurant. Not long ago my state imposed a criminally high tax structure on alcoholic beverages. It more than tripld the price of booze here MY response? I simply refuse to buy any in my home state. One state south is far more reasonable, but still high. Next state over I cn buy exactly the identical product (same product number on the bottle) for less than one third the price of that same item number in my own state. So when I go into that state I “stock up”.
WHY do states like NY and CA and MD and MA think that by banning or making ndifficult to obtain in their home states they will REDUCE possession and misuse of those items at home?
Stupid politicians continue forcing their utterly failed plans to “fix” the problems they themselves have created. And WE let them, most times.
States surrounding CA, as well as other states refuse to sell and deliver a firearm to you. You need to transfer to a FFL, with fees to get your firearm from one state to CA.
In the general case we can significantly reduce the body count of an average spree killer’s attack if many members of the public are armed in public.
Note that this particular spree killer was apparently wearing a ballistic vest, sprang into action REALLY fast, shot people in very rapid fashion (and apparently typically used double-taps as well as coup-de-gras shots on top of that), and used a rifle. It is much more difficult to reduce the body count of spree killers using tactics like that.
The sad fact of the matter is that human beings are fragile and it is exceedingly easy to impart mortal wounds. Another sad fact: cognitive bias means that our brains are incredibly slow to register a spree-killer’s attack and implement evasive action.
While we certainly can and must do whatever we can to reduce body counts, we would be wise to recognize that any moment could be our last moment on Earth and plan accordingly.
You make a good case.
For hookers, drugs and alcohol. If the next moment is going to be my last …
“Oh my God, that guy is shooting people! We should…”
A. Pass more laws
B. Wait our turn
C. Call a social worker
D. Pull, point, pew
I’ll take letter D
“D. Pull, point, pew”
No ‘pew’ in New York State, no NFA ‘toys’ allowed… 🙁
Instead of pushing to ban guns, the demotators should ban criminals, thugs, and gang bangers. Oh wait – that would eliminate most of the politicians and lawyers.
That’s a bad thing?
How was the rifle “altered illegally after the sale”?
the rifle was safe act compliant when purchased.
then full auto chain saws were installed.
A chainsaw bayonet, thank you. Or was it the thing that goes up?
With a drill so the pinned magazine could be replaced with a normal magazine.
Wow. Thank you. Such evil.
Gun control is a loosing issue.
So please, for the love of god, push that shit during midterms. Now all the first time gun buyers will be pissed, along with basically anybody suffering from inflation. Short of a new record off 85 million totally legit mail-in ballots, the democrats will loose. Hard.
quote————“To suggest stricter anti-gun-rights laws are the answer to such an evil act is absurd————–quote
The only thing that is absurd is this T Tag diatribe.
Better, more thorough strict vetting and requirements so that law enforcement report such nut cases directly to the Brady Bill people would have prevented this nut case from buying a new AR 15 and Universal Background Checks would once again have prevented the nut case from buying a second hand AR 15 and Safe Storage laws would drastically cut down on stolen guns again making it much harder for a nut case to get an AR 15 weapon of war, the weapon of choice for mass murders.
If the far right nut cases that worship weapons of war want to keep them putting them on the NFA list is their only option, otherwise there will be an eventual ban on ownership altogether. And remember if it would come to confiscation one only has to look at how fast Australia and other countries like Britain and other European countries swept clean the ownership of such weapons. Yes a few people hid them but the majority of them were melted down. No sane person would find any value in keeping them as you could not legally sell one, shoot one, or use one in a self defense situation. Remember too that parts to repair them could be banned as well. Some NFA weapons like machine guns have banned parts that if you are caught in possession of such parts even if no gun is found you are still sent to prison.
The far right are always their own worst enemies as they are to cheap, stingy and indolent to go through a background check and to indolent to lock up weapons and oppose the passing of Universal Background Checks and Safe Storage laws which only convinces the majority of Americans that do not even own guns anymore that the only way to deal with these Far Right Morons is simply to take their guns from them.
Although the imbeciles on the Far Right crow about the increase in sales of guns in the last year or so the majority of Americans still do not own guns and do not know why anyone would even want one. They are the people who will determine whether or not they force the crooked politicians to finally do something about the relentless everyday mass murder in Capitalvania, the only industrialized country in the world who seems to think that mass murder should be the norm because life is deemed cheap and expendable.
“the only way to deal with these Far Right Morons is simply to take their guns from them”.
Make sure you hold your breath waiting for this to happen.
dacien —
Molon labe.
Not a single word of truth in this entire comment.
Absolutely fascinating insight into the effect mental illness has on a person.
Even with benefit of the doubt, nothing, not even a seed of truth.
You have to admit he is a true believer. Just like Communists, Nazis and the rest, he will be a true believer even as his utopian fantasy crumbles around him.
dacian, the Dunderhead, According to the mental health professional who examined this young man, he was not a danger to the public or himself. I take it you are contesting that. As I am not a mental health professional, I defer to their “expertise” as apparently at the time of the examination he wasn’t “at least according to the professional.
All your “stricter” (sic) requirements are subject to human evaluation, and human error. You are thinking that your “new laws” will solve the problem. Not hardly.
The fact is we do not have a gun problem. We have a violent people problem. Thanks to your Leftist philosophy of releasing mental patients on the public “claiming” they are not a danger is the reason for only some of our problems. A mental health professional who taught a class I was sent to attend said, “Empty your mental hospitals; fill your prisons.” You know he was right? Seems of each of the prisons I worked in at least one third of the convicts were on mental medications. Some as much as two and three times a day.
It is time for the New York State Legislature to repeal Article 400 of the NYS Penal Law as to pistol permits as well as the NYS SAFE (sic) Act.
9-1-1 what’s your emergency?
” I’m dead, send a police officer.”
“9-1-1 what’s your emergency?
” I’m dead, send a police officer.””
Then….
“Why is that possum looking at me like that?”
“Clean-up on aisle 3.”
Wait a minute — isn’t that what a police officer tweeted and got fired for it?
I don’t care. Fire me.
More armed people would mean more people getting shot by crossfire and police pulling up to multiple shooters creating a chaotic scene that would result in higher casualties. More guns are not the solution. If you’d do some research instead of confirming your bias like the sheep you are you’d already know that.
Do me a favor friend. Link even a single instance where a good guy civilian with a gun shot innocent bystanders while trying to gun down a bad guy. Link a single instance where police shot a good guy civilian with a gun because they mistook him for a bad guy.
You know how I know that you don’t have a single example of what you claim? Because if there was, people of the gun would talk about it. We discuss in depth whether a trigger modification can put you in jail after a DGU because a zealous prosecutor might use it against us. We discuss in depth whether open carry dissuades bad guys or just makes you a target. We sight instances or a lack of instances that support these things.
Never once have I seen an article or heard a discussion about a time when cops shot a good guy with a gun because they mistook him for a bad guy with a gun. You are a liar and a fool.
But you’ve done your research right? While I, on the other hand, am an ignorant sheep. Educate me. You should have several examples of what you speak. Link even one please. I’ll wait, but I won’t hold my breath.
Not hardly, “Critical Thinking.” You are assuming. most people who own a firearm own rifles. We don’t usually carry a rifle while out in the street.
As to constitutional carry, more people carrying means fewer criminals getting away with their crimes. I for one dry fire at least three times a week. I firer on the range once every two weeks with a minimum of 100 rds. I know I am not the norm with practice, but I am relatively sure that I will hit what I aim at.
It seems you do not know much about firearms, practicing with them, etc.
As politicians use this sad incident to further their political objectives, such as the governor’s required ammo microstamping requirement (which obviously will have no effect in preventing any type of gun crime, as it is only useful after the fact), a much larger question looms for supporters of the 2nd Amendment: How do we keep guns out of the hands of those with severe mental health issues, like this perpetrator? Everyone associated with him, the local authorities, etc. all knew he was a hate filled nut case, yet he was unrestrained from planning, assembling the needed hardware, and carrying out the incident. How to balance our Constitutional rights vs. nut cases like him? “Red Flag” laws didn’t work (and they are a double edged sword, just as likely to be missed used as they are to be used as designed). I’m against Red Flag laws, but if there ever was a case for their use, this would have been it – yet nothing was done. What about the responsibility of parents? In some other other countries, the parents would be held just as responsible as this young man. Even if he is considered an adult, he was living under their roof. I don’t have an answer, but I am concerned that nuts like this will cause a backlash from the general public, aided by publicity seeking politicians, that will effect all of us supporters of the 2nd Amendment and gun rights.
” … a much larger question looms for supporters of the 2nd Amendment: How do we keep guns out of the hands of those with severe mental health issues … ”
Why is that the responsibility of 2A supporters?
“I don’t have an answer … ”
Don’t you support the 2nd Amendment?
Did you read the entire comment?? – yes, as I stated twice, I am a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, as well as an active shooter and hunter.
Why is it our responsibility? Good question. I’d say because we have a vested interest in stopping the gun grabbers, which will use this emotionally charged issue to promote and pass further restrictions (whether they work or not – as their ultimate aim is to totally outlaw guns). Also, as gun owners, we are aware of the need to protect our rights while denying nuts like this guy from obtaining firearms. Is that possible? How to do both? I don’t have an answer.
“Did you read the entire comment??”
Yes, but I now wonder why I did.
“Why is it our responsibility? Good question.”
And you still haven’t given a good answer. I don’t see any connection between “supporting the 2nd Amendment” and “denying nuts like this guy from obtaining firearms.”
We’re not law enforcement. We’re not mental health experts. We’re not congressmen. Why is it our responsibility to solve the mental health issue just because we support the right to bear arms?
The solution is to have more citizens able to defend themselves. This guy scouted out places he was sure wouldn’t have anyone who could fire back at him. It’s a common story, several shooters have admitted as much after killing a bunch of people.
It seems to me that your answer is to give up some rights today to keep anti gunners from taking even more rights tomorrow. What a silly concept. Do you think that giving up some of our rights today would help with murder? Do you think that anti gunners would quit pushing for more gun control?
I’ll tell you what would happen. Crime, including murder, would continue on as it always had. Anti gunners would say it’s because we didn’t go far enough. They would point to you personally as an example that even “those right wing nutjobs know that guns are bad” and they would press their next bill.
Your whole statement amounts to a Sheppard being scared of wolves and thinking to himself that feeding the wolves a couple of sheep be an effective way of protecting his flock. “I don’t know what sheep we should give him, but if we feed him then he won’t be hungry anymore and my flock will be safe!”
I’m all for more people carrying but let’s be clear that would have done nothing to change the outcome of this murderous rampage. The law abiding security guard was armed and he was shot dead. The murderer had full body armor. No good guys with hand guns were going to stop him.
You ever been shot in body armor while wearing it? The pain is debilitating for most, even from a 9MM. This guy also wasn’t wearing anything on his head.
Tim: He was wearing a ballistic helmet. Debilitating pain is rarely going to stop a psychopath / drugg-addled lunatic hell bent on killing everyone in the room.
I can find nothing about a ballistic helmet. Also…. drug addled? Can you be serious?
Bro had a helmet camera. Not a ballistic helmet. You are either ignorant or a liar. But this pretend 2A supporter schtick is old.
“No good guys with hand guns were going to stop him.”
Then why are you “all for more people carrying?”
Well, alien, for one thing not every asshole is wearing body armor. So it is still a good idea for as many people to carry as possible. The point is that CCRKBA claiming there is “no better case” for why everyone should be armed is, well, a little silly as there are many better cases–i.e., every case where the asshole killer was not wearing body armor. This case is not representative of why gun owners should push for more freedom to carry. In fact this case kind of undermines the claim that good guys with guns can do much of anything–ask the family of the Glock-armed security guard who engaged this asshole and still wound up on the morgue.
“this case kind of undermines the claim that good guys with guns can do much of anything–ask the family of the Glock-armed security guard who engaged this asshole and still wound up on the morgue.”
Just another liar. You pretend to support the 2A, but you don’t. Listen to the following statement and tell me what conclusion you draw: “I’m not racist but….”
You start talking about how it’s a good idea to carry, but then all you do is talk about undermining the case for good guys with guns.
Clarence Thomas, a justice on the Supreme Court, and Barbara Underwood, the solicitor general of New York, engaged in conversation about the types of places a person might carry a gun during the Supreme Court oral arguments in the significant gun-control case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al. v. Bruen last November. It’s one thing to discuss Manhattan or the campus of New York University, Thomas added. Talking about rural upstate New York is a another matter. Rensselaer County, which Underwood informed Thomas is more “intermediate” than rural, is home to the individual plaintiffs in the lawsuit challenging New York’s licensing requirements for openly carrying a concealed firearm.
VIDEO: How to Play Red Ball 4 on PC
Comments are closed.