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.
So is it your contention that they will not be affected at all?
And would this apply to criminals as well?
Can't have it both ways.
Of course they can have it both ways, that's the luxury of being shielded from reality and filled with ignorance.
But hey, let's do it for the kids right? We all know the lives of those 20 children in CT are worth a lot more than the lives of any child that might die due to these new NY gun limitations. We know that if someone shot up a school tomorrow using 2 6 shot revolvers you would again hear ignorant liberals using it as an excuse for more assault weapons bans.
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.
They had one vote/person, as do I. 50% plus 1 is the basis in a representative democracy. If you live where you have, for example, 2% of the vote, it is prudent to build coalitions. We do not base representation on geographical miles; land has no vote.
They had one vote/person, as do I. 50% plus 1 is the basis in a representative democracy. If you live where you have, for example, 2% of the vote, it is prudent to build coalitions. We do not base representation on geographical miles; land has no vote.
None of that matters when you're dealing with an enumerated right which is specifically protected by the COTUS and has been ruled on by the SCOTUS.
Of course they can have it both ways, that's the luxury of being shielded from reality and filled with ignorance.
Good point.
If only it was so easy. Would make my life much simpler.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtn
They had one vote/person, as do I. 50% plus 1 is the basis in a representative democracy. If you live where you have, for example, 2% of the vote, it is prudent to build coalitions. We do not base representation on geographical miles; land has no vote.
And that is a problem. Solved by the electoral college, as just one example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMoreYouKnow
Just think of the children man, just think of the children.
SCOTUS also reiterated the states' rights to regulate it. (must be another accidental ommission)
Until and unless a SC court says otherwise, this legislation is the law within the state of NY.
I'm sure we'll find out sooner than later, maybe we should hire some additional security to protect the conservative members of the SCOTUS. There are some rabid lefties out there who are drooling at the idea of Obama changing the supreme court leaning.
America is nothing if we cannot insure the safety of our most valuable asset: children, aka our future.
Then why are you deliberately getting them killed with your inane Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995?
Spare us your tripe, nobody is buying that you have children's interests in mind while you continue to advocate their slaughter.
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.