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.
That clearly makes it ok to eliminate their right to defend their families.
They can still defend them; I know you enjoy hyperbole, but the reality is there would still be many legal weapons, and that is a true compromise.
But to act as if rural America is self-suffiient economically is a lie, so I'll rebut that every single time. The bedwetting comment (you conveniently ignored) would not be tolerable from the region paying the bills, let alone the region relying on others to pay its way.
They can still defend them; I know you enjoy hyperbole, but the reality is there would still be many legal weapons, and that is a true compromise.
But to act as if rural America is self-suffiient economically is a lie, so I'll rebut that every single time. The bedwetting comment (you conveniently ignored) would not be tolerable from the region paying the bills, let alone the region relying on others to pay its way.
You want a tissue there bob? To go with your Pampers?
They can still defend them; I know you enjoy hyperbole, but the reality is there would still be many legal weapons, and that is a true compromise.
They've lost the ability to defend their families with the legal handguns they currently own, therefore you have removed their ability to defend their homes while staying within the law. That means that a person will have to spend their hard earned rural money to purchase something new that is again legal to defend their homes with. They've also become very limited as to how they can defend their homes since most common handguns available today aren't sold with magazines that are within the limits of the NY law.
A compromise is something that 2 parties agree to, that didn't happen in this case.
They've lost the ability to defend their families with the legal handguns they currently own, therefore you have removed their ability to defend their homes while staying within the law. That means that a person will have to spend their hard earned rural money to purchase something new that is again legal to defend their homes with. They've also become very limited as to how they can defend their homes since most common handguns available today aren't sold with magazines that are within the limits of the NY law.
A compromise is something that 2 parties agree to, that didn't happen in this case.
One side chose not to participate. That is their right, but they do lose the right to say "We were not heard" when they opt to act that way. So I would modify the phrase to "an opportunity to compromise was there". Can lead a hose to water, but cannot force it to drink.
PS: Surely they can sell guns no longer legal to new buyers in states that allow them, and that would finance new purchases within the law.
One side chose not to participate. That is their right, but they do lose the right to say "We were not heard" when they opt to act that way. So I would modify the phrase to "an opportunity to compromise was there". Can lead a hose to water, but cannot force it to drink.
PS: Surely they can sell guns no longer legal to new buyers in states that allow them, and that would finance new purchases within the law.
That's simply a lie, this legislation was pushed through quickly in the middle of the night before most people even had a chance to read it.
Doesn't just moving these evil killing machines to another state defeat the purpose of gun control?
That's simply a lie, this legislation was pushed through quickly in the middle of the night before most people even had a chance to read it.
The basis of the legislation was known for quite some time. This was not a question of what or if; just when. Similar legislation has been discussed in New York several times. I was 30 miles from Sandy Hook, 50 from NY all through mid/late December, and followed the non national public rhetoric of both Ct & NY. Cuomo was moving to action immediately, as were the NY representatives. As is always the case when part of the minority voting block, the time to compromise is early..as discussions are starting..before a bill is written. Those days were wasted, as if 50.1% was not inevitable.
One side chose not to participate. That is their right, but they do lose the right to say "We were not heard" when they opt to act that way. So I would modify the phrase to "an opportunity to compromise was there". Can lead a hose to water, but cannot force it to drink.
See, this right here is beautiful. For the longest, gun owners have made the argument that restrictions will lead to more restrictions in the name of compromise.
You as much as proved this point, then justified it by citing the opposition's refusal to compromise. Guess what, the opposition already did compromise. New York was already one of the most regulated states in the country as it pertains to firearms. And where did it lead them? It lead them to further restrictions, with the justification that if they did not compromise further, it was their fault.
At this point, the next "compromise" they would be expected to make would be a ban on all handguns, including revolvers, as a middle ground between a complete gun ban, or a limit to oh say, 3.5 rounds.
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.
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.
