Quote:
Originally Posted by woodywouldpekher
The point isn't the drivel you spew. It's the fact that until it hits home those like you think it's fine and nothing needs to be changed.
How fast do you think gun laws would change if a couple R senators had a family member killed while watching a parade yesterday morning? My guess is a "special session" would be called and by dinnertime last night assault rifles would be banned.
For far too many "R" politicians it's so sad that campaign contributions from the NRA mean more than the face that was blown off a 10 year old child.
|
One could argue that you have missed the whole "point" of this thread. Which is (was?) whether or not you think that courts will rule that NYS is in violation of its recent ruling on the 2nd Amendment...and how long you think it will be before they nullify portions (if not all) of the new gun bill they just implemented.
I didn't really ask for your opinion on gun laws in general. Why, one could almost argue that you have gone "off topic." But it is the Sandbox, after all. So more discretion is allowed here, and it should be. And I always....welcome the opportunity to debate issues like this with someone as... thoughtful and... careful as you. Mostly cuz it is so easy to do when I'm blind drunk...
But it seems that your "point" is to continue pleading the emotional issues, and to ignore the Majority Opion also. That "point" is not mine. Or that of SCOTUS. Or a few others that have looked at this in a similar way.
Here's what the WSJ Editorial Board said today:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-yor...en-11656893336
Sheesh. Much of it sounds so familiar. One might even be tempted to think ol roo just stole his OP from them. But the date and time-stamps show that this is nothing more than a few people who have actually
THOUGHT about this coming to similar conclusions. And they arrived at those conclusions because it is obvious that NY politicians think that they can ignore the SCOTUS majority opinion.
Many of you won't be able to read the whole WSJ article, as it requires a subscription. Sorry. But it raises the same "point" that I did, stating that NY officials have ignored the warning contained in the opinion regarding expanding the definition of public spaces "too broadly."
The piece also speaks to concerns about the provisions in the law requiring some kind of subjective interpretation that the permit applicant be of the "good moral character" required to obtain a gun permit. Whew. Now...I'd love to see any of you whore mongers try to defend THAT provision. And do it here, please. On this hooker board. (As buffalom laments, something is "missing")
But back to my "point" in this respone, which is that your "point" is not in agreement with the court's opinion either. Yours is, as you state more accurately, a "guess." And not a very informed or original one. Cuz SCOTUS is just as likely to shit all over your fantasy about a "special session" to ban assault weapons as they are over this bullshit that Hochul and company have come up with.
Meanwhile, as the WSJ Editorial concludes:
"All of this looks like a willful attemt to defy a Supreme Court ruling."
I'll stick with that. And predict that this will not go well for Hochul et al.
.
making it harder for legal gun owners will do nothing but make it safer for the illegal gun owners ta do what they do. Killers just LOVE them lets have more NO gun areas of legal guns 
