The 2nd Amendment pretty well covered that "reasonable controls" thing - there are none. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!
The 2nd Amendment properly enforced would make every state a Constitutional carry state.
The infringements in some states are downright totalitarian.
We need MORE regulatory decapture.
Such as ceasing to require licenses to be in business or manufacture.
So NYT thinks that state legislatures should be forbidden from passing laws, that manufacturers should be sued when their products work, and that the unConsititional no fly list should become the unConstititutional can not bear arms list.
Lampposts for them, please
Good. Let’s see them refuse to do business in Missouri.
It’d be great to have more and more businesses like this refuse to pollute states with their effluent.
I can remember the same establishment media twenty or thirty years ago screaming this same sort of nonsense back when places like Florida and Texas made it easier for law abiding citizens to obtain conceal carry permits. Apparently, Florida was going to be known as the “Gunshine State” and people were going to engage in shoot ‘em ups following fender benders or even supermarket check out line incidents.
Donald Trump is right to call out these people, including Maureen Dowd, for who they really are big time.
See, this is what liberals really think of states. They would love to have everything dictated from Washington.
A whole host of really, really bad ideas.
"gun safety measures" - please point to any documented cases where so-called "gun control laws" have actually reduced crime. I'll save you (any lib lurkers out there) some time, don't bother looking, there aren't any. Nada, zip, zero. Gun control laws merely disarm the law abiding and embolden criminals. They *always* result in increases in crime rates. This is obvious without even having to try it, but numerous places have tried it and learned the hard way.
"ban on the assault weapons" - we tried that, for 10 years from 1994 to 2004 (thanks to another Clinton). Guess what, by actual test (as in, we tried it) it made no statistically attributable difference in crime rates. None. Again, this is obvious. So-called "assault weapons" are used in a shockingly low percentage of crimes. Sure, a few isolated cases get massive coverage. But overall, you are quite literally far, far more likely to be bludgeoned to death by a hammer, club, or similar blunt instrument than you are to be shot by an "assault weapon." The odds are so far down there it literally is not worth talking about... Unless your agenda is complete disarmament of civilians, then it is a stepping stone.
"closing background-check loopholes" - ah yes, that old chestnut. The "gun show loophole" by chance? Doesn't exist. SMH. All the so-called "universal background check" laws and proposals are fundamentally, irreparably flawed: they assume criminals will obey these laws while demonstrably being willing to break dozens of others. The idiocy behind such thinking is breathtaking.
"the gun industry’s outrageous protection from civil damage suits" - is in fact no different than the protections afforded many other industries. Why not punish the maker of the car the criminal drives to commit the crime? The maker of his shoes he wore while running making his escape? The fast food place he ate at that gave him the energy to commit the crime... The list goes on and on. Here's an idea, how about placing the blame for the crime squarely on the criminal that commits it?
"denying guns to risky suspects on the government’s no-fly lists" - ah but then that pesky thing called the Bill of Rights gets in the way. Can't easily take away someone's Constitutionally protected rights without due process. Sorry, but the shady and provably suspect no-fly list falls far short of any legal standard for such action.
Hillary Clinton is a power-mad big government socialist/fascist that wants everyone but people under her control to be disarmed. She is exactly the kind of person the Founding Fathers had in mind when they penned the protections in the Bill of Rights.
I am in Mo, and I’ve had a CCW since its inception. The NYT just can’t handle a state doing anything without big brother, and to be honest, the entire staff of the Times can write everything they know about firearms on a matchbook cover in capital letters. In other words, STFU. We honestly don’t give a damn what you think.
It's a beautiful thing, to see liberal heads explode.
where the "men" wear panties, and the women are insulted by insinuations of gender..
A constitutional open carry state?
Or a constitutional carry it however you choose state?
The reality of the constitution is that the federal gov’t allows guns. The states enforce it as deemed by the legal citizens of that state.
Personally, I believe in a constitutional concealed carry, much for the same reason I turn the lights off in my house at night. So criminals really don’t know what’s out there.
There is no use in telegraphing that you (the open carry gun owner) are the first target during a crime, because you are the bigger threat (easily identified by the hog leg stuck on your belt) to the success of that crime.
Interesting. Vermont requires no permit for concealed carry. Has gun crime by law-abiding citizens gone through the roof in Vermont compared to other states because of that, or does the NY Slimes simply believe that Missouri is particularly prone to a sudden bout of gun violence by law-abiding citizens due to some inherent defect in Missourians that’s not present in Vermonters?
But they'll never allow themselves, even in the dark of night, curled-up beneath the covers of their beds, to honestly answer the question "Why is that?".
Later
FYI, the law goes into effect on 1 Jan 2017, until, then, CC license required....
FYI, the law goes into effect on 1 Jan 2017, until then, CC license required....
The circulation of the Old Gray whore should be restricted to Manhattan.
The federal restriction must be written into law because the state is far to lenient