Procrastination isn’t as cute once once is done with school. Sure, it’s fun to write papers on the way to class and learn what sociology is when reading the exam questions. But one should naturally evolve into maturity once the campus is in the rear-view mirror. Growing up means things like not putting off a pregnancy termination until the intended victim can survive on its own.
New York State’s dissenters figured Andrew Cuomo didn’t have a soul, and he apparently wanted to keep people from speculating any longer. Striving to make abortion legal well past the point when an unborn child’s humanity can no longer be debated is a deeply unsettling yet efficient way of settling the issue:
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo plans to introduce contentious abortion legislation on Tuesday, and his aides and women’s rights groups have identified Republican state senators whom they will pressure to support it, according to people familiar with the matter.
It’s curious how those ever so objectively labeled “women’s rights groups” aren’t interested in the right of unborn women to reach existence outside a womb. It may be possible to think females shouldn’t have a special right to kill a baby and still be on that particular gender’s side. At least the most callous among us are disavowing people of notions about abortion being anything more than a convenience, although they still feel compelled to claim they’re out to help:
The governor’s proposal would change state law to allow abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy to protect a woman’s health, a broader exemption than the current law that provides for late-term abortions only if a woman’s life is at risk.
Let’s hope they’re being disingenuous by acting as if the primary purpose of abortion isn’t birth control. Thinking such laws won’t lead to shady doctors handing out excuse notes is like thinking cannabis legalization is to help with glaucoma and not to make watching the Discovery Channel more fun.
The frightening thing is that Cuomo must know the law will be distorted in the name of empowering people who simply wish to remain childless. Ronald Reagan’s adamant pro-life stance later in life can be traced to him signing a bill as California governor that was supposed to permit abortions in emergencies but led to a spike in them being performed under any flimsy excuse imaginable.
Meanwhile, Reagan’s Bizarro counterpart hopes to reach the White House using a disturbingly inverted approach to humanity. New York’s governor wants to raise awareness of mysterious ailments experienced by those who don’t find parenthood appealing:
A Cuomo administration official said the bill’s language was crafted to create “a real litmus test on Roe v. Wade for members of both parties, making it impossible to vote against for anyone who wants to say they support a woman’s right to choose.”
The bill is being introduced after months of negotiations with abortion-rights advocates, religious leaders and legislators. Mr. Cuomo had delayed its debut to find bill language that would both appease women’s-rights groups and mollify the Roman Catholic Church, which has argued that changes to state law may encourage a greater number of abortions.
Only a state that thought loading a magazine to capacity is a crime would also believe that removing restrictions that kick in after half a year of pregnancy would not lead to more of them. Most guns aren’t used in crimes, while every abortion ends a life. Kid Cuomo can’t get enough of the one without the indifferent implements.
Legal infanticide that much closer to a due date means freedom to sickos who think an enlightened society allows effects of uninhibited fun to be flushed away. The trouble with any abortion discussion lies in pretending the result isn’t dead babies. The victims never get a chance to be as polite.
Albany’s absolutely exhausting power alignment has created a statewide moral vacuum. While inconsistency is the least of their problems, it remains a glaring indictment. Far too many of our politicians think being able to rid oneself of any inconvenient kids is a fair consolation prize for financial desolation.
Further, lawmakers sanctimoniously back perilously counterproductive gun laws for the purported sake of the children, all the while making it easier to permit the most innocent before birth. And this crop of philosophers dissolved an understanding of marriage thousands of years old in one legislative session.
Now, New York’s executive sells depravity cloaked in sanitary medical terms as progress. Humans keep getting in the way of Cuomo’s twisted utopian dreams.
One can determine who’s going to behave by observing responses to the government trying its hardest to be bothersome. While criminals just disregard onerous laws, decent people strive to remain in compliance while getting around The State’s ridiculous impositions. There may even be a lesson to be learned about the different practical applications of human nature.
Gun owners have again proved that they are cannier than politicians who want to disarm them. Those who don’t appreciate laws aimed at their rights are calmly getting around the SAFE Act, but only because the new interdictions are really dumb. Perhaps the reactionary dolts who think they can legislate away crime with mechanical bans should have learned about firearms before they tried to attempt to regulate them in lieu of criminals: (h/t mwbowler):
It might be the most divisive element of Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s NY SAFE Act: an expanded ban on what the administration terms “assault-style” weapons, such as the Vietnam-era AR-15s that are wildly popular with gun enthusiasts.
But the ban is proving to be less than total. Gun dealers, with the help of machine shops and gunsmiths, are on the cusp of offering what they call NY SAFE-compliant AR-15s and other military-style rifles.
Prototypes for the new rifles have been on display at gun shops from western New York to the Adirondacks in recent weeks. And now a lawyer representing one shop says he has gotten what amounts to an OK from the state, in the form of a letter from a State Police lawyer confirming that AR-15-style guns should be legal as long as they lack the characteristics prohibited by the law.
We better race to destroy said characteristics before the bad guys discover them. Also, change the Second Amendment so the only arms it protects are those with finger guns at the end of them, although of course with commonsense regulations. Count on a state which prides itself on micromanaging to not anticipate that people will be clever:
“It’s basically an AR-15 without the features,” said James Tresmond, a western New York lawyer representing H&H Firearms, a Lackawanna gun shop that’s seeking to sell such a rifle.
He aims to offer an AR-15-style rifle with the pistol grip permanently removed, and without banned accessories such as a folding stock, a flash suppressor or a bayonet lug.
Albany wants rifles to take up space and be bright when fired. And you can lug your own bayonet, mister. At least journalists are learning how guns work:
It retains the semi-automatic capability possessed by any standard AR-15, meaning one can simply pull the trigger for each shot rather than having to work a bolt action or lever each time.
And it uses the same .223 cartridge as its military cousin.
Oh, so that’s what “semiautomatic” means. Next comes learning the difference between clips and magazines. But what’s important is to emphasize the capacity for danger, as there are no other objects in our world that can be used for harm:
“What the heck is the difference?” asked Troy-area GOP Assemblyman Steve McLaughlin, noting that the modified rifles have the same firepower and potential lethality as those that are banned.
What an interesting way to phrase how guns can cause harm. The article is unintentionally helpful in showing that the media will do what it can to emphasize potential hazard if we dare respect constitutional and natural rights, as also seen in the totally not deliberately provocative “Gun design legal, deadly” headline. The same can be said about grain alcohol, but only if you secretly root for it to be illegal. And don’t forget to use the term “weapons” as if every implement in question had been used in an assault.
At least those who assume items cause crimes are encouraging innovation in the firearms industry, although that was unlikely their intention. They are also undoubtedly acting inadvertently when they argue that inaccuracy is the goal:
Long Island Democratic Assemblywoman Michelle Schimel said that following the 1994 federal assault weapons ban — which expired a decade later — gunmakers developed “AB” or “After-Ban” models of military-style weapons.
Schimel disagreed with McLaughlin on the significance of the modifications. She said the banned features, including pistol grips, are designed to increase a weapon’s effectiveness, or killing power.
“A pistol grip helps you keep firing on a target,” she said. “Each characteristic has a specific battle component.”
Condemning pistol grips for helping people fire may be the most misguided expression of firearms ignorance yet. Um, something that keeps the person firing on target is a good thing, as the nefarious prefer their targets to not be able to shoot as straight. It’s apparently better to miss, but only if you assume gun owners automatically double as murderous felons. Such a woeful attitude is like saying steering wheels shouldn’t be too responsive because it will enable psychopaths to run down pedestrians with ease. Don’t give Albany ideas.
State-imposed limitations are not very helpful when criminals disregard them. They’re not going to be deterred from perpetrating harm by a features restriction, and you can be certain they’ll try to give themselves better odds than rule-abiding people who wish to fire back. Take it from people who are scared of guns and not dastards:
Manhattan Democratic Assemblyman Brian Kavanagh, another gun control advocate, made a similar point about a firearm’s form versus function.
“The bill does not talk about whether a gun looks scary,” he said. “The bill talks about specific characteristics.”
Meanwhile, they targeted guns which they found frightening, which is historically as an effective deterrent against crime as the honor system. New York’s politicians think they have the right to spend a huge chunk of earners’ money, redefine marriage, and tell people which gun accessories are acceptable. But at least those in one case who harm nobody are finding new ways to be left alone. Albany just needs to ban ingenuity.
Doubting the government isn’t yet cool again. An outrageous overreach is only a big deal if you think Republicans did it, so pipe down while professional bureaucratic planners baby-proof your surroundings.
Making the trivial criminal is a big deal, as nothing’s as dangerous as the state inhibiting your right to self-defense for your safety. But at least one sheriff won’t arrest people who have only been deemed to be in the wrong in terms of a reflexively histrionic, shamelessly misdirected exploitation of atrocity. He’s daring to respect the right to own a firearm instead of punishing those who aren’t harming anything except Andrew Cuomo’s feelings:
One state lawmaker is calling out Erie County Sheriff Tim Howard for his comments on the SAFE Act, after Howard voiced concerns about the state’s gun control laws this week. Howard said he has no plans to dedicate Sheriff’s Office resources to enforce the new law.
There are about 75,000 pistol permit holders in Erie County. More than any other county in Western New York. Plus, there are thousands of other guns here without permits. So, when the sheriff says he’s not going to enforce the SAFE Act – the toughest gun control law in the nation – that’s a serious decision.
Gun control hasn’t stopped crime, so we need more of it, duh. People who are doing nothing wrong wait to see if they’re in trouble:
There’s a showdown unfolding between Howard, a Republican, and (Assemblyman Sean) Ryan, a Democrat. It’s all about the SAFE Act. Even though Sheriff Howard says he won’t enforce Gov. Cuomo’s signature gun law, sheriff deputies haven’t received any word from Sheriff Howard not to follow the law.
Ryan is countering and demanding that Howard enforce the SAFE Act, which opponents say violates the constitutional right to bear arms.
Ryan presumably voted for a governor who has placed unbearable restrictions on guns while redefining marriage and continuing to spend a huge percentage of money residents earn. But no, Andrew Cuomo isn’t the one whom he thinks is acting like His Majesty:
“As a top law enforcement official in Erie County, you’re job is to enforce the laws, you don’t have the liberty to pick and choose,” Ryan said. “We elect a sheriff, we don’t elect a king. Kings get to make their own laws, sheriffs get to follow laws as written.”
Yes, and sheriffs should follow the bit of law that begins “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…” Thankfully, at least one county guardian doesn’t view the sort of people who attempt to comply with onerous gun laws as real criminals. The only thing worse is pretending that shields against abusers are new as of this year:
Specifically, Ryan raises concerns about a key part of the law, which enhances protections for victims or survivors of domestic violence.
The law says that if a judge feels someone is in danger when an order of protection has been issued then the weapon needs to be turned in. If the weapon is not turned in, law enforcement officials would need to take the gun away.
Take away their steak knives and baseball bats, too. Or, the state could make it easier for potential victims to arm themselves instead of assuming someone who would violate an order of protection will also have nefarious intentions halted by gun laws. Unlike the governor, the sheriff admits he thinks ESP is a crock:
But Sheriff Howard says he would not do this, or follow any part of the law in Erie County. He has joined four other county sheriffs in signing his name to a friend-of-the-court brief seeking to overturn the Safe Act.
“If you know this is wrong, you can’t enforce it, which is why I signed on, because the law should be as it’s stated by anyone that did sign on did recognize it as being unconstitutional,” said Howard.
The county has a Domestic Violence unit and Howard says that his commitment to the squad and the issue of domestic violence remains strong.
It’s amazing that there were no laws against domestic violence before this, or rather that some apparently think there were none. But at least the law is being used to capture the most diabolical threats to our safety, namely law-abiding people who possess guns that are close to full:
A man has been charged under the New York State SAFE Act after troopers found he had a handgun in his car with the loaded magazine containing nine rounds of ammunition, rather than the limit of seven rounds.
New York plans to pursue order and justice by charging violators of a pathetically counterproductive law with felonies in order to get them to plea to misdemeanors. No matter the result, the defendants are being charged with knowing more about firearms than the governor.
A gun owner arrested for having the nerve to load a magazine almost to capacity could deny an unfair deal while junking the law through a righteous legal challenge. Albany won’t even realize that they’re the ones being taken to court.
The SAFE Act is action without safety. And it criminalized people who aren’t criminals. Other than that, there’s nothing to fear. The practical effect is making the decent as scared of the government as they are of criminals.
Every law enforcement agency makes decisions about what areas and offenses to prioritize. When the state classifies those who have done nothing wrong as miscreants, the reasonable course is to disregard those not-quite-hardened criminals in violation of baffling policies and instead attack real problems. When laws themselves are the violations, sheriffs who refuse to indulge in capricious authority are offering real protection.
Byron Brown doesn’t like competition, as seen by what can only be seen as efforts to have as few retailers as possible vie for customers in the city where he’s mayor. Buffalonians aren’t supposed to discover the ability to take one’s business elsewhere, as limiting choices to take it or leave it is to the ruling party’s advantage.
But the erstwhile Johnny Law signed up for intramural competition before the varsity season begins. How dare he! Another Democrat has some nerve helping turn an election into a marketplace of ideas. It will be good for everyone who is not presently the mayor. Brown only offers one thought, namely that winning again would be good for him:
A Mayoral candidate has stepped up to the plate, giving Byron Brown some competition from his own party this Fall.
Former FBI Special Agent in charge, Bernard Tolbert announced his candidacy for Mayor of the City of Buffalo on Saturday.
He said, “I see a Buffalo that is appealing. It’s an appealing place to live, work and raise a family. I see a Buffalo that builds upon its assets, rather than looking for silver bullet projects.”
But who’s to say taking the Metro Rail past the Central Terminal to Bass Pro or the medical campus won’t turn Buffalo into an urban utopia? The city needs to create the circumstances that permit people to thrive, not assume thriving will be caused by a wand wave. The challenger additionally thinks having good things would be good:
Tolbert told a crowd of about 150 supporters his priorities include improving schools, job growth and neighborhood development — both economically, and in terms of safety. “We must make our streets a safe place where seniors and all others are not fearful of leaving their homes,” he said.
Regarding the improvement of schools, Tolbert said, “It is heart wrenching for me now, to see the school system that helped me become who I am, failing our children. We must see every child in this city as if he or she were our own, and fight for real results.”
In reply, the mayor hopes people read his words instead of looking around:
In a statement, Brown says he’s “proud” of his administration’s accomplishments and “great progress.”
Another hopeful who’s greatest strength is not being either the present mayor or a member of his party thinks the other side isn’t doing anything worthwhile no matter who he faces in the general:
Republican challenger, Sergio Rodriguez, agrees the people of Buffalo want change, and said he’s the man to deliver it.
Mayoral candidate Rodriguez said, “We’re focused on the issues that matter most to people. I don’t see much of a sharp contrast between the other two candidates, as opposed to my candidacy. So I think we bring something very different to the table.”
There certainly hasn’t been much difference between mayors who’ve all held the same affiliation. But Tolbert might be a less worse option than perversely rewarding Brown again with another four years out of the private sector. At the least, he could offer a law and order background to a city that could use some of both.
For now, Buffalo is both poor and dangerous, which is odd, as one might think thieves would have run out of things to steal by now. He needs to ditch the heart of gold and be the tough mayor who’s always yelling at detectives:
A true humanitarian, Tolbert says he never arrested someone without feeling bad about it.
Well, at least he arrested people, although he should feel bad about the victims. Voters may enjoy the real alternative of considering Rodriguez, as trying a mayor with an (R) after his name would be fun just for the novelty of it. At the worst, Tolbert will make the woeful incumbent sweat doubly. It’d be the most productive thing Brown has done since gaining office.
The best way for a small-market team to compete is to make its market large. Every plea for corporate socialism by billionaire sports owners is made with the implication that success means dragging down those who are already successful. Take Buffalo, which was once a rather economically robust city with a population to match. Permanent decline isn’t inevitable, except for any team whose roster is amassed by increasingly middling general manager Darcy Regier.
But there will be no upswings as long as they choose to carry sandbags. Just like New York State’s attempt to tax citizens into prosperity has somehow not paid off, the Sabres seem intent on rewarding failure. If Terry Pegula ran his hockey team like he did his energy acquisition concern, he’d have generated as much as much energy as a solar-powered watch. The outage was most obviously seen in the wake-like atmosphere in the arena this season in a building that should be overwhelmingly electric.
The ruling billionaire and skating millionaires he employs should all be ashamed that the postseason press conference was the most entertaining portion of the season. Thank juvenile reporters who can’t differentiate between being critical and confrontational. Buffalo News staffers acting like indignant jerks was the most unsurprising development since Drew Stafford’s unwillingness to sweat. The news and opinion sections at the legendarily unfortunate rag are just as awful as the sports page in journalism’s worst drive for consistency.
But the childish jousting distracted from the real issue, namely an exasperating hockey side asking fans to pay more to reward failure. Count on local print media to make the city’s professional hockey executives look less like putzes by comparison.
The only thing that has gotten less satisfying results than the Sabres has been the league in which it plays. The salary cap was supposed to make teams with small natural fan bases competitive in an affordable manner; instead, it’s helped made the team in question uncompetitive at great expense, which is especially cruel to fans who wish they could cash in promises.
Most outrageously, Sabres management claims they have to milk fans for even more in order to qualify for the benefits of revenue sharing. They just don’t get enough of a share of income from attendees: the league mandates teams like the Rangers share what they’ve earned in what doesn’t quite reflect the true spirit of sports.
Perhaps a penalty for managing to be financially successful is the Manhattan franchise’s penance for actually benefiting from salary limitations that keep it from issuing ridiculous contracts to relatively underachieving players who then became impossible to trade. The Rangers horrifyingly benefit from the cap, unlike the team at the state’s other corner.
But at least the Sabres will rack up Cups once the salary cap kicks in one of these seasons. In fact, the team has declined under conditions that allegedly level the playing field.
The club’s most infamously memorable moment of the ceiling era was losing co-captains Chris Drury and Danny Briere on the same day to the small markets of, respectively, um, New York City and Philadelphia. The team somehow forgot to replace the duo, although in their defense it’s only been six years. Rebuilds don’t happen overnight, ingrates.
The Sabres are seemingly attempting to provide a comparison for Buffalonians who want an obvious metaphor for the area’s unfulfilled promise. Residents who are also hockey fans must be doubly punished for their optimism.
The only thing more depressing than missing the playoffs seven of the last 11 seasons is how many times GM-for-life Regier used the word “suffering” to classify the immediate future. Rebuilding implies that there’s a worthwhile structure being replaced. Instead of reassembling the debris of a ruined castle, the Sabres have grand plans for reconstituting the dirt pile.
Everyone cheering for the Sabres long asked for an owner who was a billionaire fan willing to spend, and we don’t know how else to phrase the wish. Costs are up while results are down in what’s as perverse as Tyler Myers suddenly playing as gawkily as one would assume he would upon first glance.
Parity is only an admirable result if it’s earned, not handed to lowly teams through Harrison Bergeroning the game. With the cap in place, the franchise has no excuse for shamelessly demanding more from fans who only deserve to be ripped off by owning shirts whose lists of championships is obsolete. The league dragged down the affluent without benefiting the indigent. It’s almost as a neatly perverse trick as Darcy keeping his job.
New York knows what it’s doing, except for how it used its impossibly restrictive and senseless laws to take the wrong person’s guns. With the new standard for proficiency, it’s a wonder the state’s economy is still on blocks in the yard. Albany is trying to eliminate good reasons to have protective firearms by ensuring there’s nothing worth stealing.
The new era of preventing violence by harassing people who don’t do anything wrong is off to a great start. A handwritten apology accompanied by a Tim Hortons gift card might not be enough to make up for one heck of a whoopsie by a state that’s projecting when it acts like its citizens aren’t to be trusted:
An Amherst man who had his guns taken away by the state is speaking out after the state admitted it made a mistake by suspending his pistol permit.
David Lewis is the man State Police deemed so mentally ill he was unfit to own a gun. They recommended to a state judge that the 34-year-old librarian’s pistol permit be suspended and the judge signed the order.
New York has some nerve deciding who’s fit with its legacy of buffoonery in mind. As usual, they’re taking their time to respond to their own cloddish actions: the Dewey Decimal System specialist still hasn’t been reunited with his .22s and .45s. The rightful owner provided an example of how the only people who obey laws are non-criminals:
Lewis turned his seven handguns in to Amherst Police. Lewis even got calls from State Police to make sure he gave up his guns that he uses for target practice.
Then State Police determined they had the wrong man. They were looking for a different David Lewis and now the judge has rescinded David’s suspension, but he still doesn’t have his guns.
Well, it’s better for the government to confiscate them just in case. Sure, the incorrect target has no criminal history or inclinations, but he can’t participate in felonies if Albany is holding his arsenal. In fact, they could end violence if they built a gun safe big enough for everyone, unless people used different weapons or acquired firearms illicitly. We better violate the right to keep medical histories confidential if we really care about our own good:
In our conversation with lawyer Jim Tresmond, we learned that this client, who has never had a problem with the law — no criminal record and or violent incidents on record — did have a temporary, short term health issue that required medication. But how were his client’s private medical information accessed by the government? This appears to be a violation of HIPAA and Health Information Privacy policies at HHS.gov. If it is declared a violation, this becomes a civil rights issue.
So, which party is out of its mind? Trust the same state to keep you safe once they get their David Lewises straight and begin imposing arbitrarily counterproductive restrictions accurately.
They want to put this embarrassing violation behind them so they can get back to fighting crime by arresting people who load magazines a little too close to full. Sure, New York remains violent despite excessive gun control, if “despite” means “because of.”
But at least someone who was never a threat was kept as such, because how could we be sure he wouldn’t snapped by chance? We should all be seen as budding evildoers. Just assume the rulers are screwing up for your safety.