"Anti-gun advocates" is an improvment over "public safety advocates" but not as correct as "anti-freedom fanatics".
1 posted on
06/02/2012 5:30:21 AM PDT by
marktwain
To: marktwain
Why do they think someone intent on murder is going to care about may vs shall?
2 posted on
06/02/2012 5:36:08 AM PDT by
driftdiver
(I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
To: marktwain
I have a real problem with “Laws” that use words like “may” or “the secretary shall issue regulations” because they turn over our rights to unelected, un-accountable bureaucrats.
4 posted on
06/02/2012 6:00:59 AM PDT by
Checkmate
To: marktwain
The changes proposed by Brady wouldn’t have stopped the gun sale, but denying Stawicki a concealed carry permit would have made it illegal for him to walk around with a gun tucked under his clothes, just as he did Wednesday morning. Oh, yeah, you know someone intent on shooting people is going to worry about a law that says he can't carry a gun. Did it ever occur to these idiot liberals that it is against the law to kill people but that didn't stop this guy from doing it. He would have obtained a weapon by illegal means if necessary, happens all the time, and still killed these people.
5 posted on
06/02/2012 6:08:28 AM PDT by
calex59
To: marktwain
They want the citizens to be slaves not free people:
To: marktwain
It’s common in “may issue” states for the cops to refuse most applications.
7 posted on
06/02/2012 6:11:27 AM PDT by
SWAMPSNIPER
(The Second Amendment, a Matter of Fact, Not a Matter of Opinion)
To: marktwain
In "may issue" states, police have the discretion to say ‘No. This person is a danger they are not going to carry a loaded weapon in public,’" said Vice, Open carry and constitutional carry states must drive these libtards over the edge.
8 posted on
06/02/2012 6:18:43 AM PDT by
CPOSharky
(zero slogan: Expect less, pay more. (apologies to Target))
To: marktwain
I do believe qualifying works and may changes the whole scenarios.
To qualify, you should be of sound mind. You stick may in there and this opens a whole can of worms. The police decide they don’t like a particular family and they may never get a license to carry.
I don’t like this at all!
9 posted on
06/02/2012 7:04:39 AM PDT by
jcsjcm
(This country was built on exceptionalism and individualism. In God we Trust - Laus Deo)
To: marktwain
Washington should consider outlawing murder as a first step.
To: marktwain
In "may issue" states, police have the discretion to say ‘No.Look how well that's worked out in New Jersey. They say "no" almost every time, if you're not politically connected or employed in aw enforcement.
12 posted on
06/02/2012 8:02:17 AM PDT by
JimRed
(Excising a cancer before it kills us waters the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS, NOW AND FOREVER!)
To: marktwain
In "may issue" states, police have the discretion to say ‘No.Look how well that's worked out in New Jersey. They say "no" almost every time, if you're not politically connected or employed in law enforcement.
13 posted on
06/02/2012 8:02:42 AM PDT by
JimRed
(Excising a cancer before it kills us waters the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS, NOW AND FOREVER!)
To: marktwain
To: marktwain
“May” issue. Well, that would be a BIG change in the intent and substance of the law.
15 posted on
06/09/2012 5:43:06 PM PDT by
vox_freedom
(America is being tested as never before in its history. May God help us.)
To: marktwain
I have a one word answer. “No.”.
16 posted on
06/09/2012 5:51:02 PM PDT by
Lurker
(Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
