[mlassoff]

It seems like out state legislature has a deal and bipartisan support for some common sense gun safety legislation.

I'm happy with what they did. Some say it doesn't go far enough-- others think it's too restrictive, which is probably a sign that they hit it about right. It's nice to see that our Republican and Democratic representatives can work together, compromise and come up with a solution.

Will it solve the problem? Not totally. We need more mental health services, and support-- but even that won't solve the problem of violence 100%-- but I do think this legislation goes a long way in the correct direction.

[kidyankee764]

I applaud Connecticut for, once again, leading the way for the country - even if it comes on the heels of the worst same-day tragedy this country has seen since 9/11. Being pro-2A, I'm very content with the proposal. It goes far enough to make a difference (universal background checks) but doesn't cross the line of interfering with our basic rights. This proposal is far from radical.

Next, time to start universalizing the intel of law enforcement agencies worldwide (interpol). This was supposed to be done after 9/11. Never happened. So if someone commits a felony in London, gets out of jail, becomes a US citizen and applies for a permit to carry, we would never know his past conviction. Not good.

Anyway, I hope this gives the town of Newtown and all of us here in CT some comfort in knowing that the state will not stand for this kind of senseless violence.

[blakesq]

what percentage of criminals will follow the new gun laws, and what percentage of law abiding citizens will follow the new laws?

Originally Posted by mlassoff

It seems like out state legislature has a deal and bipartisan support for some common sense gun safety legislation.

I'm happy with what they did. Some say it doesn't go far enough-- others think it's too restrictive, which is probably a sign that they hit it about right. It's nice to see that our Republican and Democratic representatives can work together, compromise and come up with a solution.

Will it solve the problem? Not totally. We need more mental health services, and support-- but even that won't solve the problem of violence 100%-- but I do think this legislation goes a long way in the correct direction.

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by blakesq

what percentage of criminals will follow the new gun laws, and what percentage of law abiding citizens will follow the new laws?

Since the criminals themselves aren't the ones who run the background checks, I'm not sure I understand your question-- Of course, you aren't asking with any intention of debate. You're just repeating tired right-wing talking points.

The percentage of law abiding citizens that will follow the new laws is 100%-- if they don't they are no longer "law abiding citizens"

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

The percentage of law abiding citizens that will follow the new laws is 100%-- if they don't they are no longer "law abiding citizens"

Lol, my thoughts exactly.

[liquidicevapor]

I think it is extremely frightening that this legislation has passed. It is a knee-jerk reaction to a single event. The blood hasn't even dried, and yet we are removing one of the constitutional cornerstones this nation has stood by for over 200 years. These laws would not have saved those children yet we are to believe removing our basic constitutional rights is supposed to make us more secure?

I for one am more concerned about the state being a threat to my safety. Particularly the billions of rounds of ammunition and armored 'peacekeeping' vehicles that have been purchased recently. I'd also like to mention the facts surrounding the Newtown and Aurora events are still not completely understood and them being false flag attacks is not outside the realm of possibility.

Finally, id like to say to say shame on OP for painting this legislation as a 'bipartisan' effort. You sound like a tv talking head, posturing in such a way as to make it sound like people really came together for the good of Connecticut's citizens. Citizen's rights are being taken away, plain and simple. CT's Universal background checks are likely to be used as a precedent for a nation universal background system which is de facto registration.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by liquidicevapor

I think it is extremely frightening that this legislation has passed. It is a knee-jerk reaction to a single event. The blood hasn't even dried, and yet we are removing one of the constitutional cornerstones this nation has stood by for over 200 years. These laws would not have saved those children yet we are to believe removing our basic constitutional rights is supposed to make us more secure?

How are any of our basic constitutional rights being removed?

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by liquidicevapor

I think it is extremely frightening that this legislation has passed. It is a knee-jerk reaction to a single event. The blood hasn't even dried, and yet we are removing one of the constitutional cornerstones this nation has stood by for over 200 years. These laws would not have saved those children yet we are to believe removing our basic constitutional rights is supposed to make us more secure?

I for one am more concerned about the state being a threat to my safety. Particularly the billions of rounds of ammunition and armored 'peacekeeping' vehicles that have been purchased recently. I'd also like to mention the facts surrounding the Newtown and Aurora events are still not completely understood and them being false flag attacks is not outside the realm of possibility.

Finally, id like to say to say shame on OP for painting this legislation as a 'bipartisan' effort. You sound like a tv talking head, posturing in such a way as to make it sound like people really came together for the good of Connecticut's citizens. Citizen's rights are being taken away, plain and simple. CT's Universal background checks are likely to be used as a precedent for a nation universal background system which is de facto registration.

I can't think of a better event to have a knee-jerk reaction to.

You can stil buy, own, and posses arms in Connecticut.

You're rights end at my kid's right not to be shot to pieces in his first grade classroom...

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

I can't think of a better event to have a knee-jerk reaction to.

You can stil buy, own, and posses arms in Connecticut.

I wholeheartedly agree. The right-of-center crowd screams "no knee jerk reactions", so the nation moves on with their daily lives and nothing changes. We remain at status quo. This is the same crowd that demanded the invasion of the Middle East right after 9/11 - another knee jerk reaction.

Just another example of "live and let live...unless I don't like it".

Originally Posted by mlassoff

You're rights end at my kid's right not to be shot to pieces in his first grade classroom...

Period.

[blakesq]

so, you don't understand that when criminals trade drug money for guns, that they are not complying with the requirements of having a background check done? You see, when you pretend to be ignorant, you also have no intention of debate, you are just repeating tired msnbc talking points.

Originally Posted by mlassoff

Since the criminals themselves aren't the ones who run the background checks, I'm not sure I understand your question-- Of course, you aren't asking with any intention of debate. You're just repeating tired right-wing talking points.

The percentage of law abiding citizens that will follow the new laws is 100%-- if they don't they are no longer "law abiding citizens"