Quote Originally Posted by Ridge View Post
There is a reason all gun owners get concerned when politicians bring up gun control. They feel the only people that SHOULD have guns are the military, law enforcement, and their personal body guards. The rest of us shouldnt have so much as a break action .22, in their eyes...

The 1994 gun ban banned AR-15s, but not Ruger Mini-14s, despite firing the same round in the same manner. They banned guns based on LOOKS. NYC has banned guns that are painted. England has banned guns, bb guns and airsoft guns.
Quote Originally Posted by Stuart View Post
First of all, there is no middle ground when it comes to rights. None. "Shall not be infringed" means just that. To suggest that there is a middle ground, is to suggest that there can be some sort of concession on each side to meet in the "middle." "Concession" is synonymous with "infringe" in this context.

Second, I don't think you can get a CCW in New York unless you have political connections.

Third, don't you think it is a the slightest bit ridiculous that an entire organization needs to be created to be against illegal guns? I bet there isn't a Mayors Against Illegal Rape, or Mayors Against Illegal Kidnapping. Use your head.
You both have hit the nail on the head! They don't feel that the "common folk" should have guns, only the police, military, federal agents, personal body guards, and anyone "important" enough to need one. They say they are against "illegal" guns, but what they don't say is that they would like to make it illegal for most people to own them. I wonder why they would want more laws regarding illegal guns if it wasn't their agenda to take them out of more law abiding citizens hands??? Why wouldn't they just enforce the existing laws? If it's already illegal for someone to own a firearm, would new laws make it more illegal? I didn't realize there was a gray area there.