[Tetto]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

I happen to like Clarence Thomas. I think he's a lousy jurist, but, I like him personally.

Can you tell me about a Democrat that you disagree with, that you like personally?

Sure, Robert Byrd. What an awesome guy, but I disagreed with is political outlook.

[Tetto]

Originally Posted by Sigequinox

I missed it, but apparently comprehensive research showed that to not pan out. The CDC research is as current as 2013, and its the cdc, not some blogger. Anyway, I always find that interesting and then look at california, chicago, washington DC and the rest of the liberal "gun free" cities, they're doing great. I believe over 600 people were murdered in chicago last year.

I think its closer to 750.

[Sigequinox]

Originally Posted by andthentherewere3

Thank you!

One thing that bugs me, unrelated to the above quote, is when gun owners trot out the constitution, the second amendment etc. When the constitution was written, guns were a lot less powerful. The times and technology have changed, and our laws need to change with them.

Actually, if you want to look at it in reference to the time period, citizens should be able to own fully automatics guns, rocket launchers, and anything else the military uses because back then the citizenry owned the most current technology (cannons, etc)

Maybe we should limit free speech because the founding fathers could have never imagined facebook and twitter and the mass dissemination of words. People commit suicide all the time from cyber bullying, FB has caused revolutions in the middle east resulting in thousands of deaths, many people use it to disseminate racism and hate, and skanky little girls like to ruin their lives and send naked photos to their BF and end up on the internet 6 months later.

We need the government to make these speech related decisions for us. Please government, help us help ourselves.

Anyway, your all knowing and progressive leader Malloy has already seen to it that you win.

[Sigequinox]

I find my self most bitter about this because I will not get to own an AR until i move. I couldn't afford one in college, couldn't justify the purchase when saving for a house, and then wasn't going to pay 2,000 bucks the inflated panic buying prices after SH just to have in registered a few months later.

I don't own one because I have been financially responsible, and get punished by never being allowed to own one in this state because of a sociopath nut job POS and a governor with armed security who thinks he knows better about what I can have in my life than I do.

FUDM

[dazzleman]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

The facts are that the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality, and, that gun control law is constitutional. If this law is unconstitutional, the courts will determine that.

I love the bull**** talking points about the oh-so-responsible gun owners-- Who are responsible until the law changes in a way they don't like.

Let's be clear here-- The guys you reference aren't having their guns taken away, only, their anonymity in ownership. Whether or not you trust the government is completely irrelevant. The responsible thing to do is follow the law. Or... Maybe these gun owners aren't so responsible after all?

Isn't trust in the government the whole issue, though? If you trust the government, you'd have no problem registering the gun.

I don't have guns, so I don't have a horse in this race personally, but I have little trust in the government.

[Sigequinox]

“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.” --Adolf Hitler

In all fairness, malloy, cuomo, bloomberg, obama, feinstein, are not the first to use this tactic of "public safety" and "the children". Nor was Hitler. The tactic has survived the test of time because it is effective.

Knowledge is power as they say.

[andthentherewere3]

Originally Posted by Sigequinox

I missed it, but apparently comprehensive research showed that to not pan out. The CDC research is as current as 2013, and its the cdc, not some blogger.

I did not post statistics "from some blogger", and I was pointing out how we could trade studies and statistics back and forth all day with no clear winner.

"In the dozen or so states with the most gun control-related laws, far fewer people were shot to death or killed themselves with guns than in the states with the fewest laws, the study found. Overall, states with the most laws had a 42 percent lower gun death rate than states with the least number of laws."

The results are based on an analysis of 2007-2010 gun-related homicides and suicides from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[Sigequinox]

Originally Posted by andthentherewere3

I did not post statistics "from some blogger", and I was pointing out how we could trade studies and statistics back and forth all day with no clear winner.

"In the dozen or so states with the most gun control-related laws, far fewer people were shot to death or killed themselves with guns than in the states with the fewest laws, the study found. Overall, states with the most laws had a 42 percent lower gun death rate than states with the least number of laws."

The results are based on an analysis of 2007-2010 gun-related homicides and suicides from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Lets start by removing suicide from the equation (which actually accounts for close to 50% of "gun related deaths"). It is not yours, mine, or anyone's place to decide how someone takes their life and there are no other victims involved.

What page is your link on?

[andthentherewere3]

I am not sure which page, there are too many pages (with half the posts being yours) for me to search through. I have said my piece and it would be redundant to keep repeating myself, so I will say no more.

[Sigequinox]

Originally Posted by andthentherewere3

I am not sure which page, there are too many pages (with half the posts being yours) for me to search through. I have said my piece and it would be redundant to keep repeating myself, so I will say no more.

I found it. I skipped over it the first time because all I saw was "yahoo"....So, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, like Mayors Against ILLEGAL (lol) Guns, is a vehemently anti 2A organization. It's like posting a study form the NRA. Don't let the names fool you, it's just good marketing PR. I assure you Bloomberg and Brady do very little to target "illegal" guns or to "prevent" crime. They just want people like me to look like an a-hole to people like you when I say hate them and everything they stand for. "How can you disagree, you don't want to do anything about illegal guns?" SMH

Again, what does an AW ban have to do with crime? in 2011 there was only ONE crime committed with a rifle (maybe an AW, but probably not). Anyone who wants to stop gun violence should be working on violent criminals and [illegal] handguns (which are already registered in the state of CT, how well has that worked?). Handguns account for 60x more death in CT, all of which I'm sure being illegal from hood rats in NH and Hartford.

And anyone who is realllllyyy interested in lowering deaths and increasing public safety in general, and wants a gold star, should target drinking and driving, which kills more than all guns combined in the state of CT--and it's not just drug dealing hood rats dealing death in that case. It's not as simple as telling your kid to avoid a particular neighborhood or town, you a victim of chance, equally likely to get hit and die in Greenwich and NH.