So New York is about to basically ban 75% of handguns (Obama, school)
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.
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.
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.
Very often, as was the case here, the votes cast are known far ahead of the formality, and it is simply a matter of the political demographics of the time.
Of course they moved immediately, why waste a good crisis? What good liberal wouldn't use the death of children to promote their agenda?
I would hope all move quickly. as tragic as Newtown was, we were lucky. Police response: 6 minutes. If its 10 (very routine in towns like that as schools can be miles from a PD), we're looking at a three digit death toll.
I can also understand why pols took this so personally. I am from Ct, dislike the job Malloy did regarding budgets and taxes, but i never thought I'd see an event like 12/14. Never thought a gov would have to be the one to tell 20 scared sets of parents their children were dead, let alone know they were more accurately, executed and riddled with bullets (up to 11 per child). When I see 6 and 7 year olds now in my neighborhood, I do worry about their safety. I have no kids, am single, but I do agree with Obama, in that, IMO, just as generations past felt, America is nothing if we cannot insure the safety of our most valuable asset: children, aka our future.
I would hope all move quickly. as tragic as Newtown was, we were lucky. Police response: 6 minutes. If its 10 (very routine in towns like that as schools can be miles from a PD), we're looking at a three digit death toll.
Which is exactly why we should do whatever we can to reduce the ability of rural law abiding home owners to defend their homes. The police will eventually get there and take care of everything, let's hope their revolver is enough to handle whatever kicks in the door because god forbid some ignorant liberals with irrational fears of inanimate objects finds out you have a gun that holds 10 bullets.
I know bob, it's hard to look down your nose at those filthy rural people and see them as equals but they indeed do/should have the same rights you do to defend themselves against evil people.
I can also understand why pols took this so personally. I am from Ct, dislike the job Malloy did regarding budgets and taxes, but i never thought I'd see an event like 12/14. Never thought a gov would have to be the one to tell 20 scared sets of parents their children were dead, let alone know they were more accurately, executed and riddled with bullets (up to 11 per child). When I see 6 and 7 year olds now in my neighborhood, I do worry about their safety. I have no kids, am single, but I do agree with Obama, in that, IMO, just as generations past felt, America is nothing if we cannot insure the safety of our most valuable asset: children, aka our future.
So why don't you actually do something that might fix the problem instead of attacking people who didn't do anything wrong? Why don't you use some common sense for a change and attack the people who are to blame instead of blaming people who have done nothing but prepare to defend their own home against a similar attack?
How can you honestly say that you care about the safety of "our most valued asset, children" and then you turn around and support legislation that greatly limits their parent's ability to defend them at home. It's bizarre how ignorant the anti-gun crowd can be sometimes.
How can you honestly say that you care about the safety of "our most valued asset, children" and then you turn around and support legislation that greatly limits their parent's ability to defend them at home..
there will still be plenty of guns for them to use. If they cannot succeed with multiple clips at a time, how in the world will another dozen help? Who are they-Barney Fife? Have they not practiced?
I can understand the need for 30 round or more clips in a miltary battlefield, but I'm going out on a limb, assuming an entire army is not invading their backyard. They may face 1 or 2 intruders.
there will still be plenty of guns for them to use. If they cannot succeed with multiple clips at a time, how in the world will another dozen help? Who are they-Barney Fife? Have they not practiced?
I can understand the need for 30 round or more clips in a miltary battlefield, but I'm going out on a limb, assuming an entire army is not invading their backyard. They may face 1 or 2 intruders.
If magazine swaps are easy enough for legal gun owners to trust their lives to wouldn't the same hold true for criminals?
If a home owner is now expected to swap magazines in the middle of a home invasion what's going to stop a criminal from swapping magazines during a mass shooting?
Yes, it's just too bad the criminals that they have to defend against don't follow the law and don't care about ammo magazine limits.
Hey man, even if they did, "there will still be plenty of guns for them to use" right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtn
I can understand the need for 30 round or more clips in a miltary battlefield, but I'm going out on a limb, assuming an entire army is not invading their backyard. They may face 1 or 2 intruders.
DISHONESTY ALERT.
New York already had a 10 round limit.
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.
