Gun rights backers scoff at proposed change to rules at heart of Supreme Court case

[Dr. Who]

Nevertheless a determined individual can easily find the means to kill. People like you would disarm everyone so we can all be victims.

No thanks.

I never suggested disarming everyone. I think that there should be real consequences for treating a gun with all the same care and consideration as a coffee maker. A gun has only one purpose - shooting ammunition either for target practice or for killing, whether or not that is for self defense or some other reason. In a rational society, that kind of right and power over life and death should come with a concomitant social responsibility and appropriately serious consequences for its negligent disregard.

[Cletus]

The law regarding transportation of guns is related to the two types of gun permits in NYC - premises only or concealed carry. The big snit is over those who hold premises only permits and hence the transportation restrictions. If the transportation restrictions are turfed, then premises only has no meaning. People will just tote their guns around in their cars where they are liable to be stolen or used in road rage or other impulsive incidents.

What kind of nonsense is that?

The whole thing is about the need for gun safety and responsibility, including the NY Safe Act and other measures to keep guns out of the wrong hands. Constitutionalists tend to care more about the letter of the Constitution than whether it actually makes any functional sense in many places today and that is frustrating for municipalities that are trying to maintain public safety without becoming police states.

The reality is that gun laws have very little impact on public safety. The reasoning behind the Second amendment is as sound today as it was the day it was written.

[stjames1_53]

I never suggested disarming everyone. I think that there should be real consequences for treating a gun with all the same care and consideration as a coffee maker. A gun has only one purpose - shooting ammunition either for target practice or for killing, whether or not that is for self defense or some other reason. In a rational society, that kind of right and power over life and death should come with a concomitant social responsibility and appropriately serious consequences for its negligent disregard.

You call what's happening in to day's political climate rational? And you talk about taking away one of our Rights as if it were a casual one night stand.
Take a look at VZ and tell me that a unarmed population has a chance to change anything while held at gun point. That is the inevitable end for a nation of citizens that cannot fight back against an authoritarian government. The citizens protested against what they believe was truly wrong, for all the good it has done them.
Government treat unarmed citizens differently than armed citizens. Governments fear an armed citizenry. They do not fear sheep.