25 thoughts on “Cuomo And The Other Idiots”

  1. Seriously, why should RETIRED law enforcement be singled out for (more) special considerations? At best they should be faced with the exact same magazine capacity restrictions as the rest of the populace….since they are no longer active police, they certainly don’t have the same risks to face….

    1. Seriously, why should RETIRED law enforcement be singled out for (more) special considerations?

      I know that’s a rhetorical question, but I’ll give you a serious answer.

      It’s because they’ve paid their PBA dues, so the PBA has to look out for their interests. You haven’t, so they don’t.

      This shows that the union knows the law is harmful, but they’re not going to stand up for people who are not members.

  2. Considering the facts on the ground, I’m all in favor of police officers being subject to the same strictures on firearms that oterh civilians are.

  3. “…why would a New York cop need more than seven bullets in a magazine, anyway?”

    Probably because most of the bad guys in NYC aren’t paying any attention to the LAW and they’re NOT limiting their bad guy magazine loads!!!!!

    1. Then why, as a civilian protecting myself because the police take too long, do I have to be restricted to 7 rounds?

    2. NY Cops need more than 7 rounds so they can shoot more innocent bystanders…..based on historical data, anyway.

  4. A stock M1911A1 has a 7 round magazine. That’s good enough for me, but I celebrate diversity in ammo sources.

  5. I know a recently retired NYPD Detective. He is moving and taking his magazines and his taxes to another state. NY will not get to tax his pension any more.

  6. I am a retired police officer. I am a borderline libertarian and I am leaning farther that way every day. Magazine limits are stupid and useless. I would be happy to place cops under the same limits as civilians. That is to say no limits.

    Let me bring some light into the way cops think. Most cops, I can speak for those west of the Mississippi river, are conservatives. They tend to be gun collectors and NRA members. They try to put their kids in private schools when possible. An on duty cop will often smile and tow the party line if asked in public. If your brother or sister-in-law is a cop you will probably get a more truthful answer. We aren’t stupid. We get in trouble from time to time if we get caught on camera talking off of the reservation.

    Police chiefs are often appointed by mayors and they are usually political animals. They do not reflect the average thoughts and feelings of the street cops they manage.

    One thought before parting. I live in the city I worked in for many years. I have arrested a lot of people who were very unhappy with me at the time. They hold grudges and I see them every so often when i go out to eat. I think I have a special reason to carry a concealed weapon and to have lots of bullets. At least more than the average joe.

    Be safe.

    1. A couple things that you could correct me on should the need arise.

      I have the impression that some police personnel support concealed carry and other broad interpretations of the 2nd Amendment on ideological grounds. That is, a libertarian-leaning NRA-joining Constitution-supporting officer, active or retired, may, and I emphasize may be guided by belief.

      On the other hand, I can understand where the officer-on-the-street, State Patrol-on-the-road, could have qualms about “civilians” “carrying”, inasmuch as the incredible risk a peace officer encounters in a “routine” traffic stop or simply giving a lawful police order to a person on the street. Does that person have a gun? If so, do they have a permit? And how to I best insure my safety, and the safety of a lawful permit holder, and that of a person acting unlawfully but not to a level where protecting myself with my gun will put me up on charges?

      In other words, I respect the view of many officers or their chiefs that less “guns out there” would make their jobs easier.

      I am also of the perhaps informal and ill-formed opinion that an innocuous looking Glock with a high capacity magazine is a kind of “hand assault rifle (OK, OK, military assault rifles are selectable to semi-auto mode, no?).” Maybe I have watched too many episodes of Miami Vice, but the notion is that the “bad guys” have MAC-10’s or whatever kind of semi-auto or illegally converted to full-auto weapons “out there”, and that equiping the police with Glocks was to give them a fighting chance should they stumble across a phalanx of bodyguards to a drug kingpin without SWAT backup.

      Yeah, yeah, the “stupid” use of high-speed chases, but I always thought the police should have fast cars — it would save a lot of money if the Madison Police rode in Prius cars. Similarly, argue against me if you will, but most of us “civilians” believe that the “cops should have the most powerful guns” compared to what they what may be up against? So if a single-shot breakdown shot gun is perfectly adequate for me shooting small game out in the country, and it may be more “sporting” than a semi-auto anyway, I don’t want the police to be “sporting” in their encounters with evildoers — I want them to come out on top.

      So all snark aside about how New York City’s finest have been called out for excessive use of force and how a 7-shot service weapon would make less of bullies, I happen to think that the police should have their high-capacity Glocks, and that police throughout the State of New York are now in violation because the Governor cannot rub two brain cells together, is not only testimony to his inability to think through the consequences (legislate in haste, litigate in leisure), but is symptomatic of the Liberal notion of simple legislative solutions to every problem were it not for the wingnuts.

      1. Some interesting points. I learned a lot from from my father and his years on the streets. Those lessons taken to heart saved me from untold amounts of fighting, injuries and stress over the years. Where to start?

        All people are always armed. That is the first assumption. If they make you nervous due to being enraged, crazy or just downright creepy then frisk them and know for sure. As such, concealed carry doesn’t bother me at all. I would even say it should not require a permit. I say that because in all of my years I never ran into a “good guy” (99.9% of the public) that I was worried about and the “bad guys” always concealed regardless of the law.

        I should note that the common weapon I would find on my “clients” prior to booking them into jail were all smaller model pistols of the .22, .25 and .38 caliber variety. Usually the cheaper brands and models. I also would rather confront an assault rifle than a hunting rifle. That is just common sense if you have ever compared the holes the two types of weapons leave behind.

        As a side note I was often asked by little gangster wannabe types if it was more accurate to fire a weapon sideways like they see in the movies. I always told them “Of course it is”! Bwahahahaa.

        I can accurately fire a round each second with a standard 9mm handgun. My glock holds 17 rounds ignoring the chambered round. It takes me less than 3 seconds to speed load a new magazine. That means if I shoot 51 rounds it will take me less than 56 seconds. If my magazines held 7 rounds maximum it would take me 6 reloads to fire 49 times in 66 seconds. Just ten seconds more for two less bullets.

        These arguments in the news over magazine capacity and weapon type leave me asking “where are we going, and why am I in this hand basket”???

  7. Police Chiefs, in their role as tools of big city mayors have relentlessly championed and aided the anti-gun crusade. But I think we can split that support away if we target police guns using the logic of anti-gunners. How long will the police stand with the anti-gunners if their own guns are put at risk?

    If so-called “assault weapons” are “weapons of war” which only “belong on the battlefield”, then why do we equip our police with these deadly toys? Those weapons are only useful for mass murder. The police have no legitimate need for deadly spray-fire weapons of the battlefield.

    Why do police need “high-capacity ammunition clips”, they obviously have no legitimate need for such overkill and it only encourages police to spray-fire which can endanger bystanders.

  8. This law also cleverly forgot to exempt police from school gin-free zone regs. So, in the case of trouble on campus, the police can’t set foot on school grounds.

    1. This law also cleverly forgot to exempt police from school gin-free zone regs

      That seems like a good idea. It would set a bad example for kids to see police drinking gin at school. 🙂

    2. No, you have this wrong.

      What if donuts were forbidden on school grounds, you know, the First Lady’s campaign against fat kids and athletes eating high energy foods?

  9. Of course Cuomo “forgot” to exempt the police and his bodyguards. He naturally and rightly expects that he and those whom he chooses at will (with exemptions ) won’t be subject to his own laws. Its not as if he lives in a republic or a democracy where all citizens are subject to the same law.

    1. Does the law forbid “jungle taping” a pair of 7-round clips to make more 14 rounds after a quick flip?

    1. Beyond the electricity requirement, and radio based tracker is easy to block. No signal when it’s “in a gun safe”.

      1. GPS signals are incredibly weak. For example, you often can’t get a good signal inside of most buildings or in the trunk of a car. You might not even get a good signal in a car’s glove compartment. You could likely block the signal with a piece of aluminum foil.

  10. The real solution is for everybody (except the govt. elite of course) to be put into big petri dishes and only allowed out with the required permits, xrays and anal probes.)

    As for police, how are they different from the old time sheriff where every man in town was carrying iron? They could tell the difference between the good guys and the bad guys. It might help if we’d eliminate the bad guys as we discovered them rather than sending them to training institutions (prisons.)

Comments are closed.