How is it that libertarians can ask the rhetorical question re gun laws: "Will that apply to the agents of the state?" and know the answer will be "No"?

Once again, we're proven to have asked the right question, and expected the same answer. Case in point, the new NY State law on gun clips. The "lawmakers" mistakenly applied it to their own crowd of "enforcers". And we know they just can't have that, can they?

One can ask. If those who would like to curtail the second amendment want to stop private citizens from owning certain kinds of guns and ammo and certain kinds of clips, why are they in favor of agents of the state having them? Is it because they believe the agents of the state might enter dangerous situations?

That could NEVER happen to a citizen, could it? And how is it that a citizen who has no right to keep and bear arms suddenly DOES when he joins the absstration of the state? Isn't the state supposed to be "of the people, by the people, etc?" Strange, that...

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news%2Flocal%2Fnew_york&id=895...

Be Seeing You!