Connecticut - passes emotional, illogical ammo/gun laws (defence, Maine, New York)

[jmqueen]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

So letting some people own more guns than other people would be a direct violation of 14th amendment.

Poor people can just suck it up and save, just like we all have to save to buy a car, house, big-screen TV, etc. etc. Isn't that exactly what you righties always argue? But if it's a gun, why, hey, that's a different story!

Except it's not.

What a really silly thing to argue.

[jmqueen]

Originally Posted by butkus51

Libs are lame on this issue. To them it is about a body count. They think that 10 dead are okay but not 20.

While you're at it, explain to the class how it is perfectly acceptable that Dahmer, Speck and Gacy killed all those people because they did not use a gun.

Yes, you should defend yourself with the weapons those guys used. Why do you need a gun?

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by jmqueen

Poor people can just suck it up and save, just like we all have to save to buy a car, house, big-screen TV, etc. etc. Isn't that exactly what you righties always argue? But if it's a gun, why, hey, that's a different story!

Except it's not.

What a really silly thing to argue.

Having different rules for different people is a direct violation of the 14th amendment. Your proposal will never make it past an injunction because it is blatantly unconstitutional.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

Having different rules for different people is a direct violation of the 14th amendment. Your proposal will never make it past an injunction because it is blatantly unconstitutional.

Which is why this is a waste of time to argue. Nothing is going to stop people from doing what they are doing now.

[MysticPhD]

A large part of the problem is the level of ignorance among those promoting anti-gun hysteria and laws . . . as revealed by Democratic Rep. Diana DeGette . . . and then by one of her spokeswomen trying to correct the damage done by her statement.

Questioned on what's to be done with the millions of high-capacity magazines already in circulation, DeGette asserted that they'd be discarded once they're used.

"I will tell you these are ammunition -- bullets -- so the people who have those now they are going to shoot them, and so if you ban -- if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won't be any more available," she said.

A spokeswoman issued a statement to the Denver Post, which had flagged the comment as inaccurate, explaining that the congresswoman who has worked on a high-capacity magazine ban for years "simply misspoke" -- "she should have referred to 'clips,' which cannot be reused because they don't have a feeding mechanism."

Any questions???

Read more: Democratic rep ridiculed for fumbling facts on gun magazines | Fox News

[workingclasshero]

so let's get this straight:


ct. passes a stupid bill, because of what.....some LUNITIC kills a buch of people...this lunitic woulkd have used a sword, if he thought he could get a high enough body count


1. bans the sale of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.....so the Berretta handgun magazine, that many cops (military police) use (STOCK 15 round mag)(9mm especially)( my 45 is 7 rounds) is now illegal

crazy


2. The bill also includes new registration requirements for those who already own high-capacity magazines.....like they will be able to enforce that...most people OWN more than one magazine per weapon

to even TRY to go with a magaizine (btw mags are DISPOSABLE) registration.....insane

3. creates the nation's first dangerous weapon offender registry.....like that even makes sense.....hmmm



more fascist liberal garbage

[jmqueen]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

Having different rules for different people is a direct violation of the 14th amendment. Your proposal will never make it past an injunction because it is blatantly unconstitutional.

Not a different rule at all. The feds do not provide guns for all, and they wouldn't be doing so under my scenario.

Goodness, you people will stretch logic and sense in new and amazing ways to protect your sex toys!

Oh wait ... maybe you're proposing that the government should subsidize guns now.

That will work really well for the racists and bigots on the right. Oh yeah, really well.

[workingclasshero]

Originally Posted by jmqueen

I would start by allowing fewer guns into the system. Unless the manufacturers are selling directly to criminals, the guns they use come from "law-abiding" "responsible" gun owners.

There is no need for our country to be absolutely awash in weapons so that anyone can unlock a gun safe (break into it in 3 seconds? Isn't that what one of the current threads is about?) and steal one.

If you people didn't need to play Rambo, we wouldn't have guns so effing prevalent that they're considered toys by middle-class white women like Nancy Lanza. Hell, you folks encourage the idea of guns as toys. And then you're shocked - shocked! - when someone treats them as such and someone else gets those toys and shreds six-year-olds with them.

"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers."""-- James Madison

the 2nd amendment is very specific...the RIGHT of the PEOPLE shall not be INFRINGED



""The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.""" James Madison, father of the constitution


the 2nd amendment is very specific...the RIGHT of the PEOPLE shall not be INFRINGED


yes there ARE EXCEPTIONS:
yes if convicted of a crime you would lose that right..just like a felon loses the right to vote

yes if you are COMMITTED to an institution because you are a danger to society you would lose that right....as the gun man in CT SHOULD have been...but because liberals say that institutions are 'in-humane', we have a major problem of people with mental illness walking right next to us


""" the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed""""

keep= own
bear= carry

the right of the PEOPLE to own and carry arms shall not be infringed

the point is that you could BAN all guns COMPLETELY, and it wont stop something like this

it wont stop criminals and gangs from having guns...especially the ALREADY SEVERELY REGULATED assault FULL automatic gins like an UZI

thinks about this

Cocaine is COMPLETELY ILLEGAL.....competely BANNED.......even in the smallest amounts....yet we have a severe cocaine dealing problem

every year our agencies SIEZE over 150,000 KILOGRAMS of cocaine a year...and that is only about 1% of what is smuggled into the USA yearly.

1.5 million United States residents use cocaine at least once per month -a number that has remained relatively unchanged over the past decade, even though it is completely illegal, and their is a so-called "war on drugs"

New York and Delaware were the two states with the highest percentage of cocaine treatment admissions to hospitals and rehab facilities. For New York, that number was 212 admissions per 100,000 residents aged 12 or older.


banning guns will do NOTHING to prevent what happened..it will only BOLDEN the gangs and crooks because they will be the ones with the guns

BANNING GUNS gets more COPS and innocent civilians KILLED









lenin said this...."A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the people"

"Gun registration is not enough. Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." Janet Reno

"This year will go down in history. For the first time,
a civilised nation has full gun registration!
Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient,
and the world will follow our lead into the future!" Adolf Hitler


we all understand the liberal (progressive fascist) point

take the guns away from the people so the government isnt affraid of the people revolting



we do understand you fascist liberals and your hatred of law abiding citizens

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by jmqueen

Not a different rule at all. The feds do not provide guns for all, and they wouldn't be doing so under my scenario.

Goodness, you people will stretch logic and sense in new and amazing ways to protect your sex toys!

Oh wait ... maybe you're proposing that the government should subsidize guns now.

That will work really well for the racists and bigots on the right. Oh yeah, really well.

Your really missing the point.

You cannot allow one person to own X amount of guns while another person can only own Y, that is what you were proposing and that would be direct violation of the 14th amendment.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by jmqueen

Not a different rule at all. The feds do not provide guns for all, and they wouldn't be doing so under my scenario.
Goodness, you people will stretch to protect your sex toys!
Oh wait ... maybe you're proposing that the government should subsidize guns now.
That will work really well for the racists and bigots on the right. Oh yeah, really well.

Talk about stretching "logic and sense in new and amazing ways." How exactly do you get from gun control to racists and bigots???