But the Governor is quite correct in his assertion that magazine size limitations are quite arbitrary. When New York passed its legislation limiting magazine size they did it in such a hurry that they not only forgot to include the standard exemption for military and law enforcement, they also didn't notice (or perhaps they did) that there were no seven round magazines being produced for most pistols. Governor Christie also brings up something that in which New Jersey has actually taken the lead in, that being the strategy of gradually increasing limitations of gun legislation. They originally had a fifteen round limit, and then comes the attempt to move the limit to an equally arbitrary ten round limit. The Governor asks a very good question in at what point will magazine limitations be "good enough"? So far, all I'm seeing is some sort of weird competition between the states at the top of the Brady's scorecard each trying to out-legislate the other with no real idea about whether the legislation will have any real benefit.
Since we have eyewitness accounts that because shooters had to stop and reload people are alive that would have been dead, your stance against small magazine capacity (and Christies) promotes death. Why would you be for death?
I think 10 is the right number. Christie may be right about the desire of some to gradually reduce the number incrementally until it reaches zero, but his veto is proof that such attempts do not guarantee further restrictions. So the slippery slope argument is bullshit. His veto proves it.
What that leaves us with is an honest attempt to strike a happy medium between the all or nothing sides of the spectrum which the fanatics on both sides want.
Why are you asking a question like that? Are you resorting to tedium as a strategy now? You know I've claimed that Tucson and Newtown are examples of this.
We get a response 20 days old, which is just as deceitful as his attempt to answer so far out he's hoping no one will see his response, not to mention asking something that has been answered factually years ago. .
But the Governor is quite correct in his assertion that magazine size limitations are quite arbitrary. When New York passed its legislation limiting magazine size they did it in such a hurry that they not only forgot to include the standard exemption for military and law enforcement, they also didn't notice (or perhaps they did) that there were no seven round magazines being produced for most pistols.
ReplyDeleteGovernor Christie also brings up something that in which New Jersey has actually taken the lead in, that being the strategy of gradually increasing limitations of gun legislation. They originally had a fifteen round limit, and then comes the attempt to move the limit to an equally arbitrary ten round limit.
The Governor asks a very good question in at what point will magazine limitations be "good enough"? So far, all I'm seeing is some sort of weird competition between the states at the top of the Brady's scorecard each trying to out-legislate the other with no real idea about whether the legislation will have any real benefit.
Since we have eyewitness accounts that because shooters had to stop and reload people are alive that would have been dead, your stance against small magazine capacity (and Christies) promotes death. Why would you be for death?
DeleteI think 10 is the right number. Christie may be right about the desire of some to gradually reduce the number incrementally until it reaches zero, but his veto is proof that such attempts do not guarantee further restrictions. So the slippery slope argument is bullshit. His veto proves it.
DeleteWhat that leaves us with is an honest attempt to strike a happy medium between the all or nothing sides of the spectrum which the fanatics on both sides want.
I say 10 is that happy medium.
SS doesn't want to answer that question.
Delete"Since we have eyewitness accounts that because shooters had to stop and reload people are alive that would have been dead,"
DeleteCan you please name which event you're talking about?
Why are you asking a question like that? Are you resorting to tedium as a strategy now? You know I've claimed that Tucson and Newtown are examples of this.
DeleteWe get a response 20 days old, which is just as deceitful as his attempt to answer so far out he's hoping no one will see his response, not to mention asking something that has been answered factually years ago. .
DeleteAnd now we get to hear from the people who really matter in this event.
ReplyDelete"A new Rutgers-Eagleton poll out Tuesday finds 49 percent of Garden State residents support the veto. Another 42 percent disagree."
http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/f63a7cb8fd1e42e1a4b6436787b7dd08/NJ--Gun-Law-Poll
I can't believe you said that after all the times you disparaged poll numbers that I've posted.
Delete