Democrat on gun control: “Confiscation could be an option”

In a radio interview on Thursday with Albany’s WGDJ-AM, New York governor Andrew Cuomo said that he plans to work with state legislators next month to submit a proposal for new gun-control laws; in particular, Cuomo said, “our focus is assault weapons,” because current state laws regulating the weapons “have more holes that Swiss cheese.”

“I don’t think legitimate sportsmen are going to say, ‘I need an assault weapon to go hunting,’” he said.

Cuomo continued, “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.”

Rob Port is the editor of In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • banjo kid

    Hunters don’t need assault weapons but the people need them to turn back a dictatorship if it comes about , sure we have a right to dissolve the government and make a new one but you have to have teeth when you try that or you will be shot. Wouldn’t mind my neighbor having a rocket launcher or machine gun .

    • Rob

      Its funny, when liberals want to pretend like the 2nd amendment isn’t an individual right, they cite the “well regulated militia” part (and misunderstand it). But when they want to pretend that the 2nd amendment is only about hunting, they ignore the militia part.

      • Neiman

        The actual words talk about a well regulated militia, but it says the right to keep and bear arms belongs to “the people,” not a militia.

        • Rob

          The people are the militia.

          That’s the point. Liberals parse it different ways to fit whatever point they’re trying to make at the moment.

          • WOOF

            So does SCOTUS and they keep cha-cha-changing.

          • Rob

            I find it interesting that you think it’s a positive that judges distort the law as written to fit their political agenda.

            The language of the 2nd amendment is clear. If you don’t like it, change it.

          • RCND

            If they can distort one right they can distort them all

          • $8194357

            Choom choom

          • Neiman

            A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
            state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be

            Yes, but note that the word “militia” and “the people” are separated by 10 words, while the end goal is to provide for a militia, the right of the people to “keep and bear arms” does not demand or even imply they must be part of the militia to maintain that right. To gain one thing, we insure another thing, but they are not necessarily the same thing.

            Further, I get sick of even conservatives and gun owners agreeing to some gun regulation, as to regulate gun ownership is to use the force of law to punish offenders; and that is making laws to infringe on gun rights and that Congress is specifically prohibited from doing and that applies to states and communities as well, otherwise there is no federal right to keep and bear arms. Thus, if the people feel some regulation is required, they and they alone must amend the Second Amendment and that I think the people will never do.

          • Rob

            I keep forgetting that you’re not worth talking to.

          • Neiman

            Why? What did I say that was in error above? That is what you should do, is point out clear errors. What is it that you found wild-eyed, fanatical or not logically, rationally, calming thought out and not based on facts?

            Your response was childish, it was not how a rational adult would respond to a well framed argument.

        • realitybasedbob

          Old Pal, what regulations were our founding fathers referring to?

          • Neiman

            I am not your pal and you are a liar!

          • realitybasedbob

            If you don’t know what regulations our founders were referring to, Old Pal, just say so.

          • Neiman

            If you don’t know how to stop lying, just say so Gay Bob.

          • $32406268

            How long have you been in the closet, did your bad dad touch you in your private area, cause you boy are queer

          • Neiman

            You are a sick bastard! But, we know you are gay by the way you talk and defend your gay friends. Sorry sicko, not gay, never have been, never will; but, I will keep opposing your gay lifestyle as dangerous to the world and hope you will repent and find Jesus before it is too late.

          • Austin

            Neiman, so how long have you had this man crush on bob

          • Neiman

            You are a sick bastard! But, we know you are gay by the way you talk and
            defend your gay friends. Sorry sicko, not gay, never have been, never
            will; but, I will keep opposing your gay lifestyle as dangerous to the
            world and hope you will repent and find Jesus before it is too late.

            That is what you gays have been doing since the Sixties, calling anyone gay that opposes your deviant gay lifestyle, just like your liberal pals drag out the racist label, you sick people just want to silence all opposition to your sodomitical lifestyle choice.

    • two_amber_lamps

      “Assault Weapon” is a contrived title for a “class” of weapons (interesting isn’t it, leftists put everything in little groups despite their insistence they’re egalitarian?) with “scary features.” But “hunting rifles” and “assault rifles” are not mutually exclusive types of firearms.

      A FN-FAL (chambered in .308) is every bit as good any most any other deer rifle when used within it’s envelop of accuracy.

      An AK-47 is every bit as effective as a .30-30 when used for short range hunting (heavy brush).

      An AR-15 when chambered in 6.8mm or the .300 Whisper/Blackout rounds is also an excellent choice as a brush gun.

      There are a host of other “assault rifles” that also could make for good hunting rifles when intelligently used within the scope of their design and the capability of the cartridge they fire.

      All that’s required is a magazine exchange and requisite barrel length.

      But the whole argument is a red herring since as you mentioned the purpose of the Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting.

  • sbark

    Its going to be any minute now before Senator Elect Heitkamp has a press conf. in Fargo to fully refute what Cumuo has said………any minute now……waiting…..any minute now…….

    • Rob

      Don’t hold your breath.

      • sbark

        but, but, but………..She got elected from N.Dak didnt she. The State is against gun control, hates ObamaCare, abhors a welfare dependency society, depises govt payment of abortion on demand.

        could it be called anything but Antinomianism?????

  • RCND

    Good luck with that whole confiscation idea Andy. Even if it passes and survives the court, it will be a challenge you won’t be able to meet in a large state like yours that can’t afford to do what it is already supposed to be doing.

    • Neiman

      My fear is, if get those guns, just a large number of them and even if overturned later, they will never give them back. It is like the unconstitutional gun laws in Chicago, they keep getting overturned at SCOTUS, but they just rewrite them slightly differently and meanwhile enforce them and punish those that disobey. So, in effect they just keep the controls and the people must submit and they need never obey the courts.

  • LastBestHope

    On the old Andy Griffith tv show, the town drunk, Otis, would put himself in jail after his crime of public drunkenness.. Don’t expect the violence porn criminals in Hollywood to do the same. Why no outcry from Congress or the White House against Hollywood’s huge contribution to our national mental heath problems? Having US watch endless murders by gun on the big screen and on the computer “games” our children “play” is not as issue worth talking about??

    As always, follow the money:

    “Hollywood is very touchy about the idea of taking responsibility for the stuff it actually does,” Parents Television Council’s Dan Isett said. “What happened in Newtown is absolutely heartbreaking. It shouldn’t take an instance like that to have 20 dead children that just went to school that morning, to have a real discussion about why this happened. To have a real discussion about what media does to our kids.”

    Not unlike the NRA, lawmakers fear the Motion Picture Association of America and their political allies. Consider the clout and fundraising acumen of producer Harvey Weinstein, a major heavyweight in Democratic politics, along with actors George Clooney, Brad Pitt, and Leonardo DiCaprio, all of whom have acted in or produced violent films.

    “Obviously gun control is part of the debate. Mental health is part of the debate. The fact that movie violence is not part of the debate is a big problem,” said Noah Gittell, a former Democratic campaign staffer who now writes about Hollywood for

    Though numerous studies link violence on the screen to violent behavior, an interview with director Quentin Tarantino last week typifies Hollywood’s position on the issue — minimizing the role films play in the violent incidents carried out by young male gunmen in Newton, Conn.; Aurora and Littleton, Colo.; and other cities.

    “I just think, you know, there’s violence in the world, tragedies happen, (so society) blame(s) the playmakers,” Tarantino said when asked about Hollywood’s impact on behavior during a screening of his latest violent movie, “Django Unchained”.

    “Is that a question you’re tired of?” asked a reporter.

    “Yeah, I’m really tired. It’s a western. Give me a break.”

    Others disagree, arguing that content matters. The depiction of violence as a means of resolving conflict on the screen can cause viewers to act out in a similar way, they say.

    Yet, the movie and video game industry spends millions so Congress does not change the current system of self regulation that labels content violent or not. “Big media companies spend literally tens of millions of dollars virtually every month, lobbying in Washington and around the country to make sure that they maintain the status quo,” Isett said. Since 1998, America’s five largest film studios contributed $41 million dollars to political candidates, compared with $16 million from the NRA, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. On lobbying, the watchdog group said the MPAA spent $25 million since 1990 compared with $29 million by the NRA. The Entertainment Software Association, representing the video game industry, spent $4.4 million last year alone. That money has largely kept Congress off their backs, despite pressure from parental groups to fight the increasing violence their children are exposed to.

    “There’s a fear of confronting, taking on a controversial subject which is so profoundly important to get done and get done right. It baffles me,” said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va. “It’s urgent and it is not being responded to by the membership of the Congress appropriately.”

    Some advocacy groups have proposed a mandated ratings system that requires any movie with a murder scene get an R rating. Consider the violent Batman movie “Dark Knight.” Dozens died in the movie, often graphically, but it got a PG-13 rating. Others tried to end the voluntary rating system for video games — a $11 billion a year business. That, too, was shot down.

    “It’s pretty clear the MPAA does have an influence,” Gittell said. “If Congress wants the MPAA to do something, they can give them a nudge in the right direction. But I do think the massive contributions members of Congress get from Hollywood would pre-empt them from ever taking full regulatory authority.”

    Read more:

  • The Fighting Czech

    banning guns will only change the method these nuts carry out there “misson” Will everyone feel better when some nut job walks into another “gun free” Church or School” with a vest full of home made explosives strapped on, will the media sigh with relief that at least he didnt use a gun….. Who will be the villain then? the internet? the makers of the household products used to produce the bomb? How about a law banning suicide bombing? Maybe the politicians should get a jump on this quick, they should make these places bomb free as well.. that should take care of that….

  • sbark

    Into a read by Lt.Col Dave Grossman—“on Killing”. 1st chapter details how Wars,up until the Vietnam War were fought with about 1/7th of any ave. unit firing on live targets. Most soldiers were just unwiling to kill live targets.

    It changed at the vietnam war when the army started training with simulation of live targets popping up. At that point soldiers willing to shoot jumped into the 90% range.
    But also those returning from war with various derangement symptoms jumped dramatically also vrs for example WWII.

    He then goes on to tie the Kids playing Playstation Black Ops/Call of duty very similar in training—desentizing people to killing………and then add that with those with mental illness on top of it, and the general environment of no respect for life encouraged by the USA Dem’cat party——and you have the last 4 mass shootings