there's a big damn problem.
"I respect the Second Amendment. I respect the rights
of lawful gun owners to own guns, to use their guns, but I also believe
that most lawful gun owners whom I have spoken with for many years
across our country also want to be sure that we keep those guns out of
the wrong hands..."
And the wrong hands are those of anyone she disapproves of.
"What I favor is what works in New York. You know, we have a set of
rules in New York City and we have a totally different set of rules in
the rest of the state. What might work in New York City is certainly not
going to work in Montana. So, for the federal government to be having
any kind of, you know, blanket rules that they're going to try to
impose, I think doesn't make sense."
Yeah, your rights vary according to where you live; that's a GREAT idea.
2 comments:
What I favor is what works in New York.
Nuff said there Bitch.
If that's what passes on "working" I'd hate to see the new and improved model.
Their opinions about sweeping federal rules governing gun ownership vary significantly based on the context.
They're all for sweeping federal regulations that further restrict gun rights.
The only time they start crowing about states and localities being better suited to determine what's best for their own areas is when there is a proposal for a federal law that would force relaxation of local and state laws.
In other words, federal laws that restrict rights are just fine...federal laws designed to protect them - not so much.
Post a Comment