i think.... i know what Al is saying.
If most gun owners feel that she was irresponsible, why isn't the NRA offering up middle ground solutions rather than staunch defense.
I feel the answer to that is, NY didn't offer up any middle ground solution that makes sense, they just passed laws with no real thought or research into the real issues and solutions that could make a real world difference. When governments do that, it appears as if they have a completely different agenda being imposed.
It's almost as if there is a scripted plan to ban all firearms from the public. Like when there is enough support after a horrible incident like Sandy Hook, the hand book calls for action: institute step C-3.2 as outlined in your ban all guns book.
If there were a true desire to curb as much gun violence as possible we'd be talking about a whole other scenario. But i guess washington doesn't care about 18-24 black males shooting themselves with hand guns in inner cities. Because thats where the majority of gun violence comes from.
Incase someone missed it in a seperate post... it's taken 30 YEARS to amass the same number of fatalities from mass shootings as there are in only 1 year in the city of Chicago. And only .0005% of ALL those mass shootings throughout ALL 30 YEARS were perpetrated with a rifle, assault or otherwise. That means on average, over the last 30 years there have been roughly 8 people per year killed by a rifle, assault or otherwise. That's 8 out of the roughly 13,000 gun homicides per year.
The lack of logic in the legislation is what sets us off. Just like pork in other legislation, it seems that the politicians have their own agendas because they don't come to the table with logical solutions.
"There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice. -Charles de Secondat"