[SOON2BNSURPRISE]

Someone shoots someone and guns go on trial.

Someone explodes a bomb and the bomber goes on trial.

The last I heard was the person that kills should be prosecuted by the law, not the tool that they used to commit the crime.

Our system of checks and balances works and people are upset. Amazes me.

[basehead617]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

I'll agree with you here. All networks have agendas. FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC. Worthless.

Yup. When the people who give you your news are owned by large corporate conglomerates, the interests and agendas of that larger company are what the mouthpieces serve. There's always way coverage given and attention paid to things that are 'in the family', and that trumps any idea of how most people think news should be determined and presented.

[Tilt11]

Someone show me where Obama flew Chicago gun violence victims have been flown around the country to use as he is the Newtown families. It hasn't happened. Some of us know why. Then we would know that tough gun laws don't work and the media would have to focus on that.

With our tough new laws in Connecticut now, what exactly does it do to prevent another mass killing? Or gun crime in cities like Hartford or New Haven? Nothing. We could have another mass killing and will have plenty more gun crimes

[MikefromCT]

Originally Posted by Tilt11

With our tough new laws in Connecticut now, what exactly does it do to prevent another mass killing? Or gun crime in cities like Hartford or New Haven? Nothing. We could have another mass killing and will have plenty more gun crimes

And people realize this. I don't think anyone is suggesting that this will curb all gun violence. By that logic, we could end childhood obesity by closing all McDonald's stands.

On a more serious note, though, there's no way to completely curb crime. But IMHO, this is a possible way to address it. Truth be old, this is only one step in a long list of things that needs to be done to address this problem. I would never say the solution is to ban guns. The NRA said they would be willing to work with others in an effort to have studies conducted on psychiatric behavior, in an effort to prevent this from happening again. Which I'm all for, and IMO that goes hand in hand with a background check. If people really feel that a background check is wrong because it's a violation of privacy, my message is this: Stop going on facebook!

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

Someone shoots someone and guns go on trial.

Someone explodes a bomb and the bomber goes on trial.

The last I heard was the person that kills should be prosecuted by the law, not the tool that they used to commit the crime.

Our system of checks and balances works and people are upset. Amazes me.

What a ridiculous thing to say. So according to your logic, people should be able to own chemical weapons-- and if they use them, we just charge them with a crime and all's well...

I don't consider 20 dead kids and 6 dead teachers 15 miles from my house an example of a system working. Do you?

[phlinak]

Originally Posted by hartford_renter

I think you will find that if you venture outside of CT and it's 100% democratic electorate you will find that people disagree with you COMPLETELY@!

There are those like yourself that want to take away everyone's guns, tax bullets and set up a national registry so that government officials can come in and take them all away.

Gun owners understand this which is why they oppose all of the "anti-gun" bills you try to pass.

You want an example, look at NYC they banned hand guns. You can't own them or take them into the city. Its already happened they tried to do the same thing in DC.

To hear people on the left talk about "gun violence" whenever there is a shooting instead of simply murder kills another, is very telling. People like you blame guns when a murder happens, logic tells us that there are killers and guns don't make killers kill.

Did you actually read this before you submitted it? If you did and still chose to submit, then you're a loon. Don't presume to speak for all gun owners because there are many of us who are gun owners and we choose not to join the NRA and who actually view universal background checks on all sales as responsible gun ownership. In terms of a national registry, I am admittedly still on the fence because I honestly see and agree with the concerns of both sides. Regarding taxing bullets, I may be inclined to entertain or endorse such an initiative depending on the ahswer to the following questions:

1) How much of a tax?,
2) Where would the money be allocated? and,
3) What would the revenue be used for?

However, I would be willing to accept a limitation of magazine size to say 20 rounds, in return for either, a) allowing reciprocity of any state firearms license to any other state or territory, just as we currently do with driver's licenses or, b) the establishment of one national firearms license (with federally established uniform standards and requirements) that would be valid in any state or US territory and not subject to revocation or denial by any state, county, or local government.

Personally, I feel that since the Second Amendment is a federally recognized and protected right that only the federal government should be able to revoke or deny that right and only with due cause, such as criminal conviction of a violent crime (felony or serious misdemeanor) or a medical certification of mental insanity or incompetence, and not any state, county, or local government.

Additionally, I feel that anyone who uses a firearm during the commission of any crime should be subject to an automatic and mandatory 10 year prison sentence. No prosecutorial discretion and no plea bargain. Upon conviction, you serve your sentence. Period.

[andthentherewere3]

Originally Posted by Tilt11

victims have been flown around the country to use as he is the Newtown families.

These families want to be a part of changes in gun control laws. They have been interviewed, and have spoken fervently that they are not being "used" by anyone politically, that the publicity is what is helping them get their opinions across. Stop thinking of it as Obama against gun owners, the vast majority of the public want stricter gun control laws, period.

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by rajmelk

That would be fine with me...let's stipulate then that only the militia, not the general population, can own guns.

The SCOTUS covered this in detail. The militia consists of all able bodied citizen. Note the "right of the people" in the second amendment.

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

That's not what the polls say-- The overwhelming majority wanted this bill to pass. I know it's convenient for you to believe that American's don't care, but I'll give our fellow residents credit and guess they can care about more than one thing at a time. Can you? For something you don't care about you seem to be posting a lot about it. For something that people don't care about it's discussed an awful lot in these forums...

That has been debunked on other threads on this board. That 90 percent figure came from a poll of only 100 people.

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

That has been debunked on other threads on this board. That 90 percent figure came from a poll of only 100 people.

Here's a poll with 1000 people with an 86/13 split in favor of stricter background checks.

Guns

You have no creditability here. Scat.