And no one sane is talking about a Arizona style law.
Why not try it?
Criminals have been practicing it for years. Why shouldn't the law-abiding be afforded the same consideration?
A new law wil be crafted that meets the court ruling.
I doubt it, if the city's response to
McDonald is any indication.
But it's only a matter of time before people get fed up with being on a shooting range.
From who, law-abiding citizens who are willing to go through the permit process?
Seems like a complete free-for-all exists now in Chicago and criminals carry and use guns with virtual impunity. Yes, people are sick of the shooting galleries that Democrat managed cities have become and are demanding their right to self-defense be recognized and accommodated under law.
As Jeff Snyder said:
__________________________
"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding."
__________________________
That you embrace what he condemns is why you will never be successful in the arena of ideas. There can be no reasoned, logical defense of public policies that restrains citizen behavior with a benchmark set by criminal behavior, only emotional arguments that begin and end with "I just know guns are baaaaaad" . . . .
And here is an expression of that reprehensible mindset in black and white:
Hey, how about that guy who shot up the mall yesterday. Another wonderful Second Amendment Hero!
Only the most twisted mind would conjure such a comment.
Is a child porn disseminator a First Amendment Hero?
Um, no, that's illegal for him to have the child porn.
It wasn't illegal for this guy to have a gun, that was the point.
Bullshit. Your point was simply that "that guy who shot up the mall yesterday" was "another wonderful Second Amendment Hero" simply by shooting up the mall yesterday.
The action of shooting up a mall is not an exercise of the right to arms anymore than creating and disseminating child porn is an exercise of 1st Amendment rights . . . Your reasoning is hyperbolic and your speech is corrosive to reasoned dialogue to the point where the simplest of points evade your understanding. Sadly I presume this is all purposeful because as I said, your positions are morally and intellectually bankrupt. That black hole is an unavoidable outcome of emotion based political or policy positions; any challenge to them is perceived as a personal attack and is responded to with ersatz indignation, misrepresentations of opponent's beliefs, hyperbolic accusations about your opponent's motives and white-hot animosity for anyone who has the audacity to disagree with you.
In fact, as I said, we are going to find out this week, he was batshit crazy, everyone in his life knew it, and big surprise, he was able to get a gun, really easily.
And even after being told twice yesterday that the shooter
stole the gun (and plenty of time to read the news) you persist with the same incorrect BS.
