08-06-2015, 08:26 PM
(08-06-2015, 05:04 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: never thought of it this way. thank you.
It happens in CA with gun control all the time. I hate the vitriol that often comes from the NRA, but they are correct when they recognize that every gun control measure is merely the stepping stone to the next piece of more restrictive legislation. I'll give you an actual, and recent, example. California banned all magazines with a higher than ten round capacity. They became illegal to purchase or import, but they weren't illegal to possess. The reason for that is that people who already owned larger capacity magazines within the state were grandfathered in. As long as the mags didn't leave the state they were still legal. Last week the Los Angeles city council voted to ban larger capacity magazines from the city entirely, regardless of the above (with exemptions for active duty law enforcement only, and then only for duty weapons). When the original ban went into effect it was specifically promised that this step would not be taken.
Now, you could argue, somewhat correctly, that the state made that promise not the city of LA. However, that's appealing to the letter and not the spirit. It's the nibble away strategy and it's patently obvious. The same type of thing is happening here. Think about it, anti-choice people actually believe that you're murdering babies when you get an abortion. Do you think anyone who really believes that will stop fighting to eliminate a woman's access to abortions simply because it's no longer receiving public funds? Common sense should tell anyone the answer.
