Judge upholds CT gun laws

[Hijinx]

What does the Connecticut gun law do besides bring gun confiscation one step closer.?

1. It adds more than 100 guns to the list of banned weapons..
2.The law allows present owner of magazines that hold more than ten bullets to keep those magazines , but it forbids them from putting more than ten rounds in that magazine.
you have to wonder what idiot thought that one up.
3.It requires an eligibility certificate for the purchase of any rifle shotgun or even ammunition
that's right you have to get a certificate to purchase ammunition.
4.It requires registration of guns.This seems rather stupid to me since they already have sales records of about 90% (my guess) of all guns.

There isn't a dictator anywhere in this world who doesn't forbid his subjects to have guns.
When your guns are gone that is what you are---A SUBJECT

Now these idiots who pass these laws will look at you with a straight face and say: "WE have no intention to confiscate your guns" They are liars, that is exactly what their intention is, and they are doing it in increments, like death from a thousand cuts.

One of the funniest thing about this numb nuts we have for President is his statement""There doesn't have to be a conflict between protecting our citizens and protecting our Second Amendment rights," This useless waste of skin thinks the Constitution was written for him to change and do what he likes.

 

[BigBlue]

Who said it did, bb brain? It just takes away rights of citizens to have weapons that keep your sugar daddy's goals at a safe distance.

First rocky if it didn't ban guns all guns then it is not infringing on any rights or anything DA .

 

[BigBlue]

What does the Connecticut gun law do besides bring gun confiscation one step closer.?

.

It makes the people in Connecticut feel safer and it's legal .

 

[This_person]

First rocky if it didn't ban guns all guns then it is not infringing on any rights or anything DA .

The real worry is that you believe this.

Let's say your speech is limited, but only by advocating for progressive causes. Since your speech is not fully banned, your rights are not infringed by your logic, right?

 

[BigBlue]

The real worry is that you believe this.

Let's say your speech is limited, but only by advocating for progressive causes. Since your speech is not fully banned, your rights are not infringed by your logic, right?

But it is not ,and as for your example I can not scream fire in a packed movie house ,so yes my speech is restricted ,I can not use hateful speech to insight a riot ,correct?

 

[BigBlue]

The real worry is that you believe this.

No , the real worry is that you and the other ignorant right wing nuts on this board don't .

 

[PsyOps]

But it is not ,and as for your example I can not scream fire in a packed movie house ,so yes my speech is restricted ,I can not use hateful speech to insight a riot ,correct?

That's not restricting your speech, that's restricting your ability to inflict harm on others. Just like a person that commits murder with a gun is not exercising his 2nd amendment rights by committing a crime while using a gun. It's pretty annoying to have to explain to Americans that exercising your rights go hand-in-hand with personal responsibility and in the interest of protecting others and the greater good. This factor is missing when yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater.

 

[PsyOps]

First rocky if it didn't ban guns all guns then it is not infringing on any rights or anything DA .

Here we go again... so if all guns except BB guns were banned you'd contend that our 2A rights are still intact?

Who is the government to tell responsible, law-respecting people what they can and can't own?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

But it is not ,and as for your example I can not scream fire in a packed movie house ,so yes my speech is restricted ,I can not use hateful speech to insight a riot ,correct?

Except this law effectively puts a sock in your mouth so you can't scream "fire".

I don't expect you to understand that though.

 

[nutz]

It makes the people in Connecticut feel safer and it's legal .

exactly which one are you referring to? Certainly not, the people that are refusing to register their guns.

 

[Lurk]

But it is not ,and as for your example I can not scream fire in a packed movie house ,so yes my speech is restricted ,I can not use hateful speech to insight a riot ,correct?

insight?

 

[Hijinx]

It makes the people in Connecticut feel safer and it's legal .

No: It does not.

It only makes a few cowards who believe Government and the Police that are 20 minutes away will protect them feel safer.

It certainly does not make anyone who knows the real realities of self protection feel safer. It takes away their ability to protect them and their family.
And beyond that it infringes on their rights, and an infringement on your rights by Government is frightening, because no one knows what the next infringement will be.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

BigBlue....who do want to enforce these gun laws if one doesn't register? What do you should happen? Door to door confiscation of anyone's weapon that doesn't comply?

 

[PsyOps]

It makes the people in Connecticut feel safer and it's legal .

Eating a lot of chocolate makes a fat person feel better, but does that make the fat person more healthy? The intent of making laws is not make people FEEL safer, it's to actually make us safer. Gun control does nothing of the sort. Gun control makes us less safe. It disarms the law-abiding people while arming criminals. I don't even know why people would think that makes them even FEEL safer.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Eating a lot of chocolate makes a fat person feel better, but does that make the fat person more healthy? The intent of making laws is not make people FEEL safer, it's to actually make us safer. Gun control does nothing of the sort. Gun control makes us less safe. It disarms the law-abiding people while arming criminals. I don't even know why people would think that makes the even FEEL safer.

Not to mention the fact that we're seeing record numbers of gun purchases, yet crime is at it's lowest in years.

 

[PsyOps]

Not to mention the fact that we're seeing record numbers of gun purchases, yet crime is at it's lowest in years.

This discussion gets distracted to the emotional “guns look dangerous and make me feel uncomfortable”, when it should really be about the constitution. There are so many things in this country that make me FEEL uncomfortable, but if the constitution allows it, I just have to get over my discomfort. What I’m comfortable with or not is not justification for tweaking the constitution.

Guns were never designed to appear to be something comfortable. I think everyone should get some level of discomfort that we even have weapons that are designed to kill each other; not from the standpoint of the weapon, but from the standpoint of why we need them: there are bad people in this world. The constitution is designed to allow the good people to have them in order to protect us from the bad people. Certainly having them exist gives way for the bad people to use them against good people. That doesn’t mean we should try to do away with them; because anyone with a rational mind knows that will never happen. You can try to get rid of all guns you want, but it does nothing to get rid of the bad people.

 

[itsbob]

No its NOT legal... even their legal defense of their decision admits it's not legal...

 

[Chris0nllyn]

This discussion gets distracted to the emotional “guns look dangerous and make me feel uncomfortable”, when it should really be about the constitution. There are so many things in this country that make me FEEL uncomfortable, but if the constitution allows it, I just have to get over my discomfort. What I’m comfortable with or not is not justification for tweaking the constitution.

Guns were never designed to appear to be something comfortable. I think everyone should get some level of discomfort that we even have weapons that are designed to kill each other; not from the standpoint of the weapon, but from the standpoint of why we need them: there are bad people in this world. The constitution is designed to allow the good people to have them in order to protect us from the bad people. Certainly having them exist gives way for the bad people to use them against good people. That doesn’t mean we should try to do away with them; because anyone with a rational mind knows that will never happen. You can try to get rid of all guns you want, but it does nothing to get rid of the bad people.

But we've seen the Constitution restricted or limited due to something...anything. Almost always it's public safety.

Why is the 2A any different? We're so far past the point of arguing something is legal simply because it's in the Constitution, or simply because it says "do not infringe".

I understand your argument, but screaming "it's in the Constitution" isn't changing Liberals mind's. I'm quite sure nothing is.

But I'm trying to argue another side of it. The side that most gun control advocates seem to ignore. The fact that police will enforce these laws. Police are simply citizens allowed to carry guns and enforce laws. So, Liberals and gun control advocates want a select group of citizens to be able to carry guns under the false premise of safety. Police won't, and don't make us safer. It's not their job and the SCOTUS agrees. Simply put, they don't want gun control, they want people control. If they wanted gun control, they would advocate police giving up their guns.

 

[This_person]

But it is not ,and as for your example I can not scream fire in a packed movie house ,so yes my speech is restricted ,I can not use hateful speech to insight a riot ,correct?

You can't yell "fire" if there's no fire. You can if there is. That's because you'd hurt people.

There are already laws about using guns to hurt people.

 

[This_person]

No , the real worry is that you and the other ignorant right wing nuts on this board don't .

Please review the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, and get back to me.