Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just ignore the law, drive them crazy with lawsuits and protests. Stage marches and bankrupt them with the costs of extra police coverage. Get enough people to show up and voice their opposition and they'll back down.
Tell them to worry about real issues, like the state being bankrupt and mismanaged and taxes being out of control. Throw garbage at lawmakers and ridicule them at events. Shout them down in press briefings.
They'll take the hint.
I don't feel the least bit of sympathy for them. They elect these communist authoritarians like Bloomberg .. and Coumo, so let them suffer the 40% jump in violent crime .... let them sit in a puddle of urine frantically dialing 911 when some thugs are kicking in their doors .... someone has to be the glaring example of this liberal lunacy ... might as well be the liberals themselves.
I agree completely. And when the cops do show up to clean up the mess if any are left alive they will most likely ticket them if they find any xtra large cola's sitting on the counter.
No it won't immediately cease, but if it saves one kids life that's enough for me.
You just said you don't go the slippery slope argument yet your comment here is one grand one. There are a lot of things that could be done to potentially save one kids life, or one person's life. We could ban swimming pools ( a common source of death for kids), we could ban household chemicals, we could ban electrical outlit, we could ban pocket knives, we could institute mandatory visits to households with any child to interview parents, and inspect homes. We could ban fire matches. We could go on and on that could save just ONE child's life.
But at what price? How much freedom to give up for it?
But to reverse your claim, what if....just what if those 7 shots in one case weren't enough to stop a intruder? If 8 or whatever more shots in that one case would have made the difference between life and death wouldn't it be worth it? According to you no. Just bad luck buddy, sorry.
Who's life is more expendable in the what if game? Now that the state of NY says a doctor can notify that a person doesn't seems fit to own a gun when that person in question might be a woman who is distraught wanting prescription for anxiety over a threatening ex and is refused a gun because the doctor thinks she is unbalanced and later her ex kills her is she the expendable one in the numbers game?
But I guess according to Cuomo that restraining order she filed will stop her enstranged ex so she can sleep safe I guess. Cuomo wouldn't have to worry about it personally anyway because he has guards that would be outside his home unlike that woman who would have to wait 10 or 20 minutes for her cops to show up.
Cool. There's going to be a flood of nice guns on the market, pouring out of NY state, driving prices down for those of us that have chosen to live in states that respect their residents and aren't interested in micromanaging every aspect of their life. I see myself adding a few pieces to the collection soon...
NYC just had record low murders, a per capita rate far lower than all other major US cities, although one could debate whether any in Texas are major.
Then why all the fuss about needing tougher gun laws? You do realize that the toughest gun laws in the nation are in Illinois, along with the highest crime rates, right? You do know that East St Louis is the number ONE most dangerous city in the United States, right?
When you look at the national statistics, and you see that the highest crime rates are in the cities with the most strict gun laws, seems to me anyone with a lick of common sense would shy away from making the same mistakes. But then again, no one ever accused liberals of possessing common sense, so maybe that explains everything, or maybe Bloomberg wants to give crime a little kick start?
BTW, Houston Texas is the 4th largest City in the United States, San Antonio is 7th, and Dallas is 9th, Austin 14th, and Fort Worth 16th, El Paso 19th. That's 6 out of the top 20 ..... no other state comes close.
Then why all the fuss about needing tougher gun laws?
Because more improvement is achievable. Despite being America's safest large city, NYC would rank poorly worldwide. It is far ahead of every Texas city, Chicago, Philly, etc, but globally none are good.
I don't feel the least bit of sympathy for them. They elect these communist authoritarians like Bloomberg .. and Coumo, so let them suffer the 40% jump in violent crime .... let them sit in a puddle of urine frantically dialing 911 when some thugs are kicking in their doors .... someone has to be the glaring example of this liberal lunacy ... might as well be the liberals themselves.
I used to live in rural, upstate New York. The area had a high level of gun owners and active shooters. Unfortunately, the state is dominated by bed wetters in New York City, and to be honest, some of the other larger urban areas. What urbanites have done to the citizens of New York state...is no different than what urban bed wetters of the east and west coast are bringing to the country as a whole.
What urbanites have done to the citizens of New York state...is no different than what urban bed wetters of the east and west coast are bringing to the country as a whole.
Better buy yourself some waterproof gear - it's going to get a lot wetter.
That clearly makes it ok to eliminate their right to defend their families.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.