Boyd asked Senate Democrats about Brophy’s concerns. They sent her a statement saying an amendment dealing with thats [sic] issue is currently being drafted and will be presented in a committee hearing Monday. [More]Way to help them with divide-and-conquer.
So now that they're exempted, what's their incentive to get mad as hell and join the rest of their fellow gun owners?
I hate it when "our side" helps theirs bullet-proof a bill, making it palatable to some. I wish they'd stop pointing out "flaws" to be fixed and let the idiot regressives reach exceed their grasp and piss off as many "sportsmen" as possible.
1 comment:
But how else are we going to get the Fudds to oppose the bill to begin with than to make them understand that it's their guns that are ultimately under attack?
Also, pointing out specific weapons that shouldn't be banned that are, or getting exemptions for specific weapons, seems the best way to me to later prove that a bill is unconstitutional.
Because if the law bans guns that are in common use by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes, particular guns that are more and more common, then it's easier to show that the law is unconstitutional that way.
However, then, if you can get exemptions for those guns, it then becomes clearer and clearer that the banned guns are not "dangerous and unusual" because there's this whole list of exempt weapons that are equally dangerous.
Post a Comment