Discussion:
New York lawmaker calls NRA photo 'outrageous'
(too old to reply)
Just Wondering
2021-11-29 23:48:23 UTC
Permalink
New York (CNN)New York lawmakers are responding to what they
call an "unacceptable" photo posted by a National Rifle
Association publication.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/05/us/new-york-lawmakers-nra-
photo/?iid=ob_article_footer_expansion&iref=obinsite
This was probably talked to death when the article was published
NEARLY SIX YEARS AGO.
The image, published in an editorial in America's 1st Freedom,
shows photos of New York state Sen. Roxanne Persaud and Assembly
Member Jo Anne Simon with four bullets beside them.
Simon said the photo was "clearly" intended to be "threatening
and intimidating."
I fail to see how any reasonable person would be intimidated
by a photo of a person with four rounds of ammunition (it
probably wasn't a photo of bullets, which illustrates the
writer's ignorance).
The proposal in question, announced in a press release on
December 20 by the two lawmakers and Brooklyn Borough President
Eric Adams, aims to cap the amount of ammunition an individual
can purchase over 90 days at "no more than twice the amount of
the capacity of the weapon."
More ignorance. A person who buys gun for defense should fire
it enough to develop at least minimum proficiency. That could
easily take 50 rounds a month, or 150 rounds over 90 days, which
is easily 10-12 times the gun's capacity. That's not counting
the 100 or more rounds he should on hand at all times. >
"If I have a cold I can't buy Sudafed without ID
That's just dumb. Sure you can buy Sudafed without ID.
You can buy a lifetime supply without ID.
but I can walk into any gun shop and walk out with enough
bullets to arm a small army without showing any kind of ID,"
Simon said in the release.
Unless you also buy reloading equipment, powder, cartridges, and
primers, and know how to use them, buying bullets won't do you
any good.
"The San Bernardino shooters had 6,000 rounds of ammunition. We
need this legislation so that cannot happen here."
More stupidity. If someone goes off the rails and takes his gun
and a hundred rounds to commit mayhem, it's irrelevant how many
rounds he leaves at home. Even if it's 60,000 rounds, all that
ammo just sitting there isn't going to hurt anyone.
Scout
2021-11-30 13:03:22 UTC
Permalink
New York (CNN)New York lawmakers are responding to what they
call an "unacceptable" photo posted by a National Rifle
Association publication.
<yawn>

Spoiler alert: Donald Trump will be elected as President in 2016.
slate_leeper
2021-11-30 14:51:54 UTC
Permalink
Simon said the photo was "clearly" intended to be "threatening
and intimidating."
For sure. Just like guns are responsible for shootings. Somehow it is
never the shooter's fault..... Obviously photos are just as
dangerous. Yup.

Snowflakes of the world unite... and melt.


-dan z-
--
Protect your civil rights!
Let the politicians know how you feel.
Join or donate to the NRA today!
http://membership.nrahq.org/default.asp?campaignid=XR014887
(use cut and paste to your browser if necessary)

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.
Gronk
2021-12-03 05:16:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by slate_leeper
Simon said the photo was "clearly" intended to be "threatening
and intimidating."
For sure. Just like guns are responsible for shootings. Somehow it is
never the shooter's fault..... Obviously photos are just as
dangerous. Yup.
Snowflakes of the world unite... and melt.
Guns must make it easier, right? Think how hard it must be to kill a bunch
of school kids with just a knife...
Just Wondering
2021-12-03 09:26:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gronk
Post by slate_leeper
For sure. Just like guns are responsible for shootings. Somehow
it is never the shooter's fault.....  Obviously photos are just
as dangerous. Yup. Snowflakes of the world unite... and melt.
Guns must make it easier, right? Think how hard it must be
to kill a bunch of school kids with just a knife...
That's quite an appeal to emotion you've got there. Now try
a little rational thought.
(1) Name any notorious shooting.
(2) Describe any new proposed gun control law.
(3) Explain how (2) would have prevented (1).
Scout
2021-12-03 16:53:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Gronk
Post by slate_leeper
For sure. Just like guns are responsible for shootings. Somehow
it is never the shooter's fault..... Obviously photos are just
as dangerous. Yup. Snowflakes of the world unite... and melt.
Guns must make it easier, right? Think how hard it must be
to kill a bunch of school kids with just a knife...
That's quite an appeal to emotion you've got there. Now try
a little rational thought.
(1) Name any notorious shooting.
(2) Describe any new proposed gun control law.
(3) Explain how (2) would have prevented (1).
Even if 2 wouldn't have prevented (1).....
Gronk
2021-12-19 05:30:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gronk
Post by slate_leeper
For sure. Just like guns are responsible for shootings. Somehow
it is never the shooter's fault.....  Obviously photos are just
as dangerous. Yup.  Snowflakes of the world unite... and melt.
Guns must make it easier, right? Think how hard it must be
to kill a bunch of school kids with just a knife...
That's quite an appeal to emotion you've got there.  Now try
a little rational thought.
Follow your own advice. Even you should be able to see that a gun is
more efficient at killing than a knife.
(1)  Name any notorious shooting.
(2)  Describe any new proposed gun control law.
(3)  Explain how (2) would have prevented (1).
Loading...