no, hunting is not the issue. But Obama is employing this strategy because he now knows the gun industry, NRA and it's membership are way to powerful for him to take on. He is hoping to fracture off a large percentage of gun manufactures and owners ... shotgun owners ... who would take the opinion that a 7rd limit wouldn't infringe on them. Sadly, I have heard from at least half a dozen shotgun hunters since Gov Cuomo signed the NY Safe Act reiterate the very same thoughts ..."it doesn't affect me" ...Lol... Hunting isn't the issue here when concerning the second amendment.
The Balkanization of "We The People" is a clever trick the ruling class has used time and time again...it is pure Alinskyism. Separate gunowners from non-gunowners and hunters and suddenly the 2nd Amendment can appear to apply only to a fringe group of "gun nuts." The others don't see it as relevant to their lives and will not defend it...what is lost is the fact that the rights protected by the Constitution apply to everyone...even those that choose not to exercise them and once they are gone they are gone for everyone...even if they realize it to late.no, hunting is not the issue. But Obama is employing this strategy because he now knows the gun industry, NRA and it's membership are way to powerful for him to take on. He is hoping to fracture off a large percentage of gun manufactures and owners ... shotgun owners ... who would take the opinion that a 7rd limit wouldn't infringe on them. Sadly, I have heard from at least half a dozen shotgun hunters since Gov Cuomo signed the NY Safe Act reiterate the very same thoughts ..."it doesn't affect me" ...
Thankfully Senator McLaughlin posted the "rejected proposals" of the NY Safe Act ... it gives us and the fence sitters a crystal clear view of the gun control crowds agenda ... it is not about safety! it is not about reducing crime! it is not about protecting children! and it has nothing to do with the Sandy Hook shooting!
it is a Socialist agenda and they have been pushing it for nealry 80yrs!
The SCOTUS has already ruled that police are under no obligation to protect any individual...there role is to protect the public peace, no more. This decision was based, in part, on the 2nd Amendment right to self defense.Anti-gun blissninnies like Obama always talk about hunting. They are trying to drive a wedge between hunters, recreational shooters and self defense advocates. They are having some success. On several boards folks have expressed a desire for the universal background check crap and reduced capacity magazines.
The ultra-liberal, anti-gunners never talk about guns used for self defense because they are also opposed to the use of guns for self defense. You're are supposed to depend on the police for protection. Didn't you see the lettering on the police car? "To serve and protect".
IMO: Law abiding gun owners should be making a big deal of the self defense issue: They are not doing that. Maybe i'm sensitive about self defense because of my involvement in two home invasion shooting incidents-so be it.
You and i are well aware of that fact: The general public is not. The anti-gunners still chant their old mantra: "The police will protect you" and tens of millions believe them. When a self defense issue is brought up, the anti-self defense, anti-gunners fall back on: "But it increases the violence".The SCOTUS has already ruled that police are under no obligation to protect any individual...there role is to protect the public peace, no more. This decision was based, in part, on the 2nd Amendment right to self defense.
that would be fucking laughable if the realities weren't so sadThe president also said much of the challenge in Washington is to make Americans feel that national politics is indeed connected to their day-to-day realities.
“And that’s not an unjustifiable view,” he said. "So everything we do combines both a legislative strategy with a broad-based communications and outreach strategy to get people engaged and involved, so that it’s not Washington over here and the rest of America over there.”
When they start requiring a back ground checks to vote I will go along it that. I have been a dealer for 20+ years and do not know of anyone who has been denied to buy a gun that was valid!! Everyone, to the letter, have been mistakes which caused the accused person much time, money, and stress to it straighten out. And this DV exception is pure BS too. I spent 30+ years in LEO (and am still doing it) and I can tell you 99.99% of DV's should not restrict the RIGHT of the offender to NEVER own a gun. That .01% who are truly dangerous will get what ever they need (gun or other weapon) and go after the other party!!!Personally I have no objection to a longer more extensive background check with firearm purchases. Thats a minor inconvenience. I just want to be informed as to what their looking for, and if I was denied I'd want that reason too. I'd also want some legal recourse for a denial if there's merit. Someone with no criminal background shouldn't be worried about a background check... Now it's when they go down that no "mental health patients get guns" road I have to say nay. Where would you draw the line... If you had ever taken an anti psychotic or been prescribed them you could be denied... If you had ever seen a therapist you could be denied... If you'd ever had a change in mental status from a pervious injury you could be denied...
That my friends is the slippery slope.
Personally I think introducing gun safety into schools at an early age would help. Also require mental health education into health classes in middle and high schools. Heck there's a million things to do. But taking guns away is not the answer.
And that makes it right? Shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed.Some folks act like the unfettered right to own weapons has always been protected by the constitution until the last four years. That is just not true. We have long accepted that we can not own machine guns without special permission from our government. If we do own machine guns, we give up rights to searches.... We cant own tanks, armed aircraft or vehicles. I don't know anyone who owns a functional howitzer. When my grandfather was a young man, he could have had a Gatling gun if he wished, to go along with his horse drawn cannon. When my father was a young man, you could buy a Thompson at the hardware store; along with a case of dynamite. When I was a kid, you could order a rifle from Sears, with no FFL middleman and no checks.
There is a trend here........There has not been a right to own weapons suitable for a insurrection to change the government for many, many years. I guess a lot of people have not figured that out.