tinydancer
Diamond Member
Do you believe it is constitutionally/legally/conceptually/morally acceptable to...
...Limit the gun rights of law-abiding citizens because a negligible minority might shoot up a theater?
...Limit the religious rights of law-abiding muslims because a negligible minority might fly an airliner into a skyscraper?
If you believe one is acceptable but not the other, please explain, in detail the difference.
I don't believe either are acceptable.
Let me give you an example of liberal touchy feely legislation that happened in Toronto. We have very tough hand gun legislation. The shootings that were occuring were centered around drugs and gang bangers.
The guns used in the commission of the crimes were illegal or legally registered but stolen by the criminals.
So the moronic liberal mayor at the time David Miller decided the way he could make the city of Toronto a safer place was to outlaw legal shooting ranges. Gun club ban on public property.
All members were legal gun owners and enthusiasts, but yuppers in all liberal brilliance the city council banned the legal gun ranges.
Has the gun violence stopped? Hell no. A block party was just shot up by gang bangers with two dead, many injured.
Such asswipes. And Miller was the biggest asswipe of them all.
City votes to ban gun clubs from public property
Some local gun clubs are now out of business after Toronto city council voted to ban them from operating on city property as part of a measure to keep streets safe from weapons.
A rifle club located inside a Scarborough community centre and a gun club at Union Station will now have to find a space to lease on private property in order to operate. Toronto Mayor David Miller said he supports the plan because of recent crimes that were committed using stolen legal guns.
Read more: City votes to ban gun clubs from public property | Toronto
Last edited: