1. “In what will likely infuriate plenty of legal gun owners, New York’s Gov. Andrew Cuomo said this afternoon that he’d like the state’s legislature to consider all options in debating new gun control measures, including “confiscation” of “assault” weapons or “mandatory sales to the state” and “permitting.” 2. “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it,” he said. Listen belwow, via WGDJ-AM…” New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo On Gun Control: ‘Confiscation Could Be An Option’ | Mediaite 3. “The mere idea that the New York government could confiscate private, legally owned property is bad enough. Cuomo, however seems to think this is actually within his power to do. 4. Expect to see this kind of proposal spread throughout other deep blue states in the near future. I don’t think many of this will actually become law (unless liberals have really gone off the deep end), but the fact that it is being proposed and considered show just how tightly Democrats and liberals hold to the idea of never letting a crisis go to waste." NY Gov. Cuomo: Gun Confiscation “Could Be An Option” | The Right Sphere 5. "I’m sick of people saying “hunters don’t need an assault weapon to go hunting”. or “I don’t need a 30 round magazine to shoot a deer”. or “I don’t need an assault weapon for home protection”. Why do we let them get away with saying such stupid stuff? Who the hell are these people to say what I need or want for anything I choose. Does Barack and Michelle need to spend $4 million of tax payer’s money on their 20 day Christmas vacation? Do people need to ride around in a Cadillac? Why not a Dodge or Chevy? Does Tiger Woods need $50 million a year? Why do these sports and movie stars need such big homes? I say make them live in a relatively modest home … like mine. They don’t need a 50,000 square foot home and fancy cars and body guards … Andrew Cuomo: Gun Confiscation I'm seeing a pattern here.... "Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs." If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared". WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared" WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared" If Liberals have the view that they can take away unalienable rights.... ...heck, I guess they believe they can take anything.