Connecticut passes strictest gun cont...

Connecticut passes strictest gun control laws in US as Obama's reforms stall

There are 1562 comments on the Guardian Unlimited story from Apr 4, 2013, titled Connecticut passes strictest gun control laws in US as Obama's reforms stall. In it, Guardian Unlimited reports that:

A makeshift memorial to the victims of the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, which has reignited the national debate on gun control.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Guardian Unlimited.

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#254 Apr 6, 2013
conservative crapola wrote:
<quoted text>
I love this teadead 180 when a talking point they've been suckling forever takes an about face.
bwahahahahahahahahahaha
Your direction should be towards sanity.
conservative crapola

Bethlehem, PA

#255 Apr 6, 2013
Where Is My America wrote:
<quoted text>Your direction should be towards sanity.
What would a teadead know about sanity?

hahahahahahaha

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#256 Apr 6, 2013
DavidQ762 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not quite, DOLT. For the USurpreme kourt SHOT down the D.C. gun ban..
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.[United States v.] Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Justice Scalia

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#257 Apr 6, 2013
conservative crapola wrote:
<quoted text>
What would a teadead know about sanity?
hahahahahahaha
Thank you for proving my point.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#264 Apr 6, 2013
God Save The Republic wrote:
<quoted text>
Please provide the exact language from Heller that supports your statement. It was still 9-0 as an individual right...
<quoted text>
I will ignore your attempt to provoke. So again, please provide the exact language from Heller (I am especially interested in the part about slaughtering school kids).
<quoted text>
Partially correct - the majority also stated that it was not unlimited. The dissent was really taking exception to overturning the law in DC.
<quoted text>
Not relevant. The 9-0 individual right determination and the point of this discussion has nothing to do with the extent of the limitation on keeping and bearing arms. Those things you identified above are already in place. If they are specifically overturned in the future it will be by something other than 9-0 (just like the law in DC).
Try it this way 9-0 individual right. 5-4 on the extent the right can be limited. The argument now and future court cases will center on to what extent the right can be infringed. It will be interesting...
But I thought all you gun-nut morons always insist it can't be infringed AT ALL?

If the individual right can be infringed, then it can be taken away.

It will all depend on who's sitting on the court.

I say leave it to the states to decide.....

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#265 Apr 6, 2013
Where Is My America wrote:
<quoted text>Under our system of laws it is an insane proposal.
As Americans we can never tolerate trading one right for another.
You may want to give up liberty for security but that would be your own insecurity.
What would you hand back for freedom of speech or equal justice under the law?
At the end of the day it is all intertwined.
Our rights are not childhood privileges to be handed out and taken back by a parental governing force.
Once one right is lost it is forever lost and the next right begins to slip away at that moment.
I agree, denying gays the right to marry IS an insane proposal, but it should be left to the states to decide, just like the ability to own a gun.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#266 Apr 6, 2013
Where Is My America wrote:
<quoted text>A state has no right greater then the Constitution.
If a state can ban same-sex couples from marrying, then a state can ban morons from owning guns.

“For Home Defense Get A Shotgun”

Since: May 08

York, PA

#268 Apr 6, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
But I thought all you gun-nut morons always insist it can't be infringed AT ALL?
If the individual right can be infringed, then it can be taken away.
It will all depend on who's sitting on the court.
I say leave it to the states to decide.....
Again, I will ignore your attempt to provoke. You do seem to be a bit prejudice in your thinking.

The point is that while there are in fact current infringements, those may be overturned in the future. The make up of the court will certainly play a role. However, attempting to completely take the right away would result in a million plus dead Americans. Leaving it to the states is problematic - considering the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution... Since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land it will ultimately need to be resolved at the federal level.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#269 Apr 6, 2013
DavidQ762 wrote:
Alexander Hamilton,
Monarchist.

Imagine the USA in Hamilton's world... and yours, GayDavy.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#270 Apr 6, 2013
DavidQ762 wrote:
<quoted text>
"...The
copy and paste, GayDavy.

Alexander Hamilton was a monarchist, GayDavy.

He wanted to establish George Washington for life as king.

You have any quotes from people not dead for 200 years, GD?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#271 Apr 6, 2013
DavidQ762 wrote:
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents,
copy and paste, GayDavy.

Alexander Hamilton was a monarchist, GayDavy.

He wanted to establish George Washington for life as king.

You have any quotes from people not dead for 200 years, GD?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#272 Apr 6, 2013
DavidQ762 wrote:
<quoted text>
""The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed."
Are you ashamed of the Second Amendment, GayDavy?

Don't you know the words to the one we have in the USA, GayDavy?

Wipe your chin, Hon.
myth

Francesville, IN

#273 Apr 6, 2013
I am ashamed of the Article VI BS that allows the constitution to be thrown out for a mere treaty , even if that treaty is with those who seek to destroy the constitution . Who wrote Article VI ? Why would anyone wanting sovereignty do that ?
ZippityDooDah

UK

#274 Apr 6, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you ashamed of the Second Amendment, GayDavy?
Don't you know the words to the one we have in the USA, GayDavy?
Wipe your chin, Hon.
Wipe your chin, Hon.
telling others to imitate yourself is the very depth of despair, for you know how low you have sunk.

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#275 Apr 6, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree, denying gays the right to marry IS an insane proposal, but it should be left to the states to decide, just like the ability to own a gun.
You are moronic.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#276 Apr 6, 2013
God Save The Republic wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, I will ignore your attempt to provoke. You do seem to be a bit prejudice in your thinking.
The point is that while there are in fact current infringements, those may be overturned in the future. The make up of the court will certainly play a role. However, attempting to completely take the right away would result in a million plus dead Americans. Leaving it to the states is problematic - considering the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution... Since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land it will ultimately need to be resolved at the federal level.
Full Faith & Credit has nothing to do with gun ownership; that's why a Conceal Carry Permit isn't valid in all states.

Why are you gun-nutters so quick to jump right to killing a "milion plus" Americans?

And you wonder why we think guns need to be restricted?

No one trying to completely take the right away; we're just supporting reasonable restrictions to attempt to cut down on the daily slaughter of innocent people.
Sir Bucking Fastard

UK

#277 Apr 6, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Full Faith & Credit has nothing to do with gun ownership; that's why a Conceal Carry Permit isn't valid in all states.
The States which require the possession of a license or permit to do what is otherwise totally legal, are in violation of several U.S. Supreme Court decisions, and those are:
"The claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime."
Miller v U.S. 230 F 486, at 489

"No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it."
Miller v U.S., U.S. Supreme Court,[319 U.S. 105 (1943).

"If a state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity."
Shuttlesworth v Birmingham, U.S. Supreme Court.[394 U.S. 147 (1969).]

"Constitutional rights cannot be denied simply because of hostility to their assertions and exercise; vindication of conceded Constitutional Rights cannot be made dependent upon any theory that it is less expensive to deny them than to afford them."
Watson v. Memphis, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921),

"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions."
Tiche v Osborne, 131 A. 60.

"The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff."
People v Zedillo,{219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922).

"When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and NO ONE is bound to obey it."
State v Sutton,[Source: 63 Minn 167, 65 NW 262, 30 LRA 630]

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be NO rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
Miranda v Arizona, U.S. Supreme Court, 384 US 436, 491 (1966).

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights."
Snerer v Cullen 481 F. 946.

"We find it intolerable that one Constitutional rights should have to be surrendered in order to assert another."
Simmons v U.S.,[390 US 389 (1968)].

So, you were saying? You might allude to whatever the HELL is is that you'd like, but at the end of the day, there is such a large body of 'settled law,' as to make any of your squeaks become TOTALLY irrelevant.

Now, go back to bed and pull those covers up over your pitiful, miserable little head, because YOU are TOO AWFULLY AFRAID to face life HEAD ON.

"Time men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."
Thomas Jefferson 1796
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Why are you gun-nutters so quick to jump right to killing a "milion plus" Americans?
WHEN has any such thing EVER happened in the U.S.?
Your HYPERBOLE is becoming VERY SHRILL!!!
WeTheSheeple wrote:
And you wonder why we think guns need to be restricted?
Projecting onto others how you feel about yourself is NOT an acceptable practice, because EVERY TIME you post, you reveal your entirely bigoted mindset.
WeTheSheeple wrote:
No one trying to completely take the right away; we're just supporting reasonable restrictions to attempt to cut down on the daily slaughter of innocent people.
Your so-called 'reasonable restrictions' are COMPLETELY against what is spoken of in the Second Amendment, because, ANY such 'reason restrictions' amount to INFRINGEMENT.

Just WHAT is it that YOU don't understand about 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED?'

Either you have a right, or you DO NOT.
There is NO SUCH THING as 'half-pregnant.' You're either there, or you are not.
Christine

Minneapolis, MN

#278 Apr 6, 2013
What will be banned after the next mass murder?

What if the sick killer uses a bomb, knife, drowning, motor vehicle, rope, fire, club, poisen, air plane etc etc?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#279 Apr 6, 2013
Sir Bucking Fastard wrote:
........zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.... ...
We stomped you Brits twice already, don't make us do it a 3rd time.

“For Home Defense Get A Shotgun”

Since: May 08

York, PA

#280 Apr 6, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you gun-nutters so quick to jump right to killing a "milion plus" Americans?
It is really very simple. There are people that will die to maintain their freedom. You anti-freedom people need to be reminded of that fact periodically...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Should they teach this in schools? Aug 14 okimar 3
News FPC Vows Legal Action on Approved California As... Aug 4 jimwildrickjr 1
News WVa AG: Manchin Should Resign Dem Leadership Role Aug 4 JohnInLa 3
News The NRA And The Worst Ad You May Ever See Jul 31 Red Crosse 185
History of the .233 Remington Jul 31 SummerBB8 1
News Heidi Harris: CCW's On The Rise Jul 29 Get Out 2
News Country singer Scotty McCreery cited for Jul 25 Been There Done That 4
More from around the web