Connecticut lawmakers reach deal on 'most comprehensive' gun limits in US
Apr 4, 2013 07:06:42 #
Richard94611 wrote:
BigBear, that's nonsense. That is your subjective view of things, an opinion rather than fact. You had better get used to the idea of minorities because before long they will be the majority. Hispanics are already the largest minority in America, and their numbers are increasing rapidly.
You're right, we are now the 3rd class minorities and no longer important in their world except for funding.
Apr 4, 2013 07:11:13 #
Well not surprising that CT has passed this bill early this morning.
The complaint that most of them had was they weren't given enough time to actually read it before they were mandated to vote on it.
They just brought organized crime in CT to a new level !!
The complaint that most of them had was they weren't given enough time to actually read it before they were mandated to vote on it.
They just brought organized crime in CT to a new level !!
Apr 4, 2013 07:31:12 #
Frank T wrote:
Danilo, br I wouldn't write the law off as a fail... (show quote)
It's always been my understanding the founders of our country intended the federal government be the least of the three levels of government (fed., state, local). The fact they could not ratify the Constitution until the Bill of Rights was included (10th Amendment) would seem to verify this.
Given that once a law is passed, it's rarely repealed, I can't really support the concept of "experimental laws". But since you brought it up, when Dianne Feinstein's "assault rifle" ban with attached 10-round magazine limit was not renewed at its sunset date would seem to indicate this experiment has already been conducted.
My suggestion is: Those who wish to ban firearms should by all means do so in their own households and let it go at that. That you do not trust law-abiding citizens with firearms speaks volumes to me.
Apr 4, 2013 07:35:45 #
BigBear wrote:
Well not surprising that CT has passed this bill early this morning.
The complaint that most of them had was they weren't given enough time to actually read it before they were mandated to vote on it.
They just brought organized crime in CT to a new level !!
The complaint that most of them had was they weren't given enough time to actually read it before they were mandated to vote on it.
They just brought organized crime in CT to a new level !!
Thank you, BigBear! You've brought up a major point here. Passing laws without reading them seems to be the new normal. If our representatives are going to make a habit of this (as it appears) I'll suggest we have less need of them than in the past. Hell, WE can pass laws without reading them...what do we need them for?
Apr 4, 2013 08:28:06 #
TimS
Loc: GA
Danilo wrote:
Thank you, BigBear! You've brought up a major point here. Passing laws without reading them seems to be the new normal. If our representatives are going to make a habit of this (as it appears) I'll suggest we have less need of them than in the past. Hell, WE can pass laws without reading them...what do we need them for?
All they need to do is look at the title of the law. There is no need to read the details. That's just nit picking. For example, who in their right mind would oppose the national defense authorization act? Who wouldn't want to authorize defending this country....right?
Apr 4, 2013 08:56:25 #
Remoman wrote:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/01/17557867-connecticut-lawmakers-reach-deal-on-most-comprehensive-gun-limits-in-us?lite
As a nation, Mexico has the most stringent gun laws I have ever seen. The citizens are unarmed. Only criminals and drug cartels have guns. You can see how that is turning out.
PhotoTex
Apr 4, 2013 09:10:43 #
Tim, you are entitled to your opinions -- and that is ALL they are -- even when you are wrong.
TimS wrote:
Yes and we know the US police officers and soldier... (show quote)
Apr 4, 2013 09:14:10 #
TimS
Loc: GA
Richard94611 wrote:
Tim, you are entitled to your opinions -- and that is ALL they are -- even when you are wrong.
Well if I agreed with you then we'd both be wrong.
Fact of the matter is that I have gone through much more strict, thorough, and exhaustive background checks than most of the police officers in the USA today. That is not an opinion, that is a fact.
Apr 4, 2013 09:15:12 #
TimS
Loc: GA
Richard94611 wrote:
Tim, you are entitled to your opinions -- and that is ALL they are -- even when you are wrong.
Oh, I almost forgot - my right to protect my family from danger is also not an opinion. It is a fact that has been enshrined in the Constitution for quite a long time.
Apr 4, 2013 09:17:06 #
Please quote that part of the Constitution that reads "the right to protect one's family from danger."
TimS wrote:
Oh, I almost forgot - my right to protect my family from danger is also not an opinion. It is a fact that has been enshrined in the Constitution for quite a long time.
Apr 4, 2013 09:28:49 #
TimS
Loc: GA
Richard94611 wrote:
Tim, you are entitled to your opinions -- and that is ALL they are -- even when you are wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKy-WSZMklc
2:27. Yep, cops have never shot an unarmed, defenseless person.
Apr 4, 2013 09:30:37 #
TimS
Loc: GA
Richard94611 wrote:
Please quote that part of the Constitution that reads "the right to protect one's family from danger."
Second amendment. Perhaps you would also like me to post links to the volumes of court cases that support the idea that we are free to own guns in self defense? Surely you can't be that stupid.
Apr 4, 2013 09:32:38 #
Please quote that part of the Second Amendment that states you have the right "to defend your family." QUOTE IT. Don't worry about the legal cases. I was reading some yesterday.
TimS wrote:
Second amendment. Perhaps you would also like me to post links to the volumes of court cases that support the idea that we are free to own guns in self defense? Surely you can't be that stupid.
Apr 4, 2013 09:45:31 #
TimS
Loc: GA
Richard94611 wrote:
Please quote that part of the Second Amendment that states you have the right "to defend your family." QUOTE IT. Don't worry about the legal cases. I was reading some yesterday.
That's as stupid and asinine as someone demanding that you quote the part of the constitution that gives you the right to even post your opinions online. The constitution gives us freedom of speech. What part of typing on a keyboard and posting it online for others to read entails the use of vocal cords to vibrate at select frequencies to generate sound waves in such a procession as to emulate coherent language, otherwise known as "speech?"
The right to keep and bear arms has been solidly decided many, many, many times over to include the right to own and use guns for self defense. Just because you do not like that does not make it any less so.
Apr 4, 2013 09:49:24 #
TimS
Loc: GA
Richard94611 wrote:
Please quote that part of the Second Amendment that states you have the right "to defend your family." QUOTE IT. Don't worry about the legal cases. I was reading some yesterday.
Moreover, the right to use deadly force to defend onesself and the lives of others is specifically included in laws (and State Constitutions also) such as stand your ground laws and caste doctrines all throughout the country. This includes my home state.
So again, your petty childish bitching about me making the clear and non-opinionated statement of FACT that I have a right to protect my family from harm is clearly ludicrous.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.