Following Peelousy´s example, the NY legislature had to quickly pass the bill to find out what was in it.

Well, here´s the logic.

When all the criminals and terrorists obey the law against high-capacity magazines, the cops won´t need them either!

New York´s homicide rates are about to rival Chicago´s.

Passing bills without any public input, without any legislator actually reading the bill........the demonrat way.

No doubt Police Commissioner Kelly is overjoyed! He is such a tool.

This is what happens when the children are in control.

OOps

I guess the new leftist legislative mantra - see Obama care and New York gun legislation - will forever be "Legislate in Haste, Amend at Leisure". And we continue to elect these clowns to decide how we should live. SHEESH!

He will be the frontrunner only if he can come up with a believable explanation in regards to the missing millions from HUD when he served in the Clinton WH. Until then, keep dreaming dems.

"Nobody needs ten bullets to kill a de-e-e-e-r"

Like the feds´ laws on light bulbs, toilet tanks, and the like. All blow and go and not one ounce of common sense.

They better follow the law! You cannot have law enforcement violating the law now can you?

The plan is to make the state not have to worry about the citizen but the citizen to worry about the state.

Yes, #10, while they completely ignore securing our borders and protecting our nation.

Police officers/law enforcement, et al should not be exempt from any laws that restrict the type of firearms and magazines law-abiding citizens may use. Period.

Police are not soldiers - despite the grotesque militarization of police departments we have witnessed with the flood of post 9/11 money into law enforcement.

The dangerous individuals that they face are the very same - by their very nature - that the law abiding populace are confronted by.

Whereas a police officer will, for the vast majority of the time, be aware of the threat that they are responding to, civilians are not.

Whereas a police officer under physical threat will almost always be accompanied by other armed officers when facing an armed threat, a civlian will not.

Whereas police have the advantage of GPS tracking, radio monitoring and centralized command and control to assist them in countering and fighting off a threat, a civilian does not.

The typical law abiding citizen is confronted by crimials by surprise, the typical law abiding citizen is frequently outnumbered when facing a criminal threat.

If you a stirred awake in the middle of the night and you have the means to defend yourself with a pistol, what happens when there are two or more home invaders and you are restricted to 7 rounds of ammunition? A cop wears a uutility belt with two spare magazines as standard equipment, you won´t be as fortunate wearing your boxers and t-shirt. Further, you will be outnumbered and in close quarters with those seeking to do you harm.

Then there´s this issue, it´s a pretty safe bet that someone willing to kill to get their way will not be agonizing over the fact that they may be arrested for using a 15 round magazine.

In the lie-beral mindset, police don´t need guns. See how well that has worked in England. It´s the police having guns that make all those poor understood and victimized criminals have to carry guns.

Hey, lie-berals, I have a better idea. Let´s continue to allow law-abiding citizens and the police to practice our 2nd amendment rights and keep guns, and lets take them away from the criminals and crazy people instead!!!

Why do I have the feeling that some lie-beral is reading my last paragraph and accusing me of being a racist right now because he can´t find any real way to argue with my point???