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.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#872 Apr 10, 2013
Sir Bucking Fastard wrote:
"If a state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity."
If you insist on selling firearms to felons, I shall come after you, put you in jail, and you will not touch a gun again.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#874 Apr 10, 2013
Sir Bucking Fastard wrote:
Thomas Jefferson 1796
Owned 600 human beings.

Insisted only white men had the right to own firearms.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#875 Apr 10, 2013
Sir Bucking Fastard wrote:
<
"We find it intolerable that one Constitutional rights should have to be surrendered in order to assert another."
You have no right to sell firearms to felons and your fellow mental incompetents.
Sir Bucking Fastard

UK

#876 Apr 10, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
How is that hypocritical? I don't own any assualt rifles, I have no high capacity magazines, I've never committed a crime, and I follow all the gun laws of my state.
I don't oppose law abiding citizens owning reasonable weapons in accordance with their state laws.
I just don't believe there is an individual federal constitutional right to do so.
It's up to the states to decide.
It's up to the states to decide.
NO SUCH THING IS TRUE!

Fourteenth Amendment:
"SECTION 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amend...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#877 Apr 10, 2013
Sir Bucking Fastard wrote:
"We find it intolerable that one Constitutional rights should have to be surrendered in order to assert another."
You lie.

But again, for someone to make up as many aliases as you, making up quotes isn't hard.
Sir Bucking Fastard

UK

#878 Apr 10, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Selling firearms to felons is not a Constitutional Right, no matter how hard gun gnutters stomp their feet.
WILLFULLY IGNORING THE LAWS OF THE REPUBLIC IS A FELONY!

So, once again:

"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.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."
Thomas Jefferson 1796
Sir Bucking Fastard

UK

#879 Apr 10, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no right to sell firearms to felons and your fellow mental incompetents.
WILLFULLY IGNORING THE LAWS OF THE REPUBLIC IS A FELONY!

So, once again:

"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.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."
Thomas Jefferson 1796

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#881 Apr 10, 2013
Sir Bucking Fastard wrote:
So, you were saying? You might allude to whatever the HELL
He is saying, you spooge swilling lying PHONY and FRAUD: you can quote- and misquote, and make up quotes until the cows come home but they don have a GODDAMN THING to do with do with CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS that STILL STAND RIGHT NOW, you whiny parasitic sniffing teabagger, and here's the fun part: universal background checks are coming.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#882 Apr 10, 2013
Sir Bucking Fastard wrote:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
You do not have a right to sell firearms to felons, knobjob, that Phoenix cowhand is banging his buckle against your forehead and you are seeing stars.

Here's what a real supreme court justice said, speaking for the majority:

"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
Gun Control Does Not Work

United States

#883 Apr 10, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
How is that hypocritical? I don't own any assualt rifles, I have no high capacity magazines, I've never committed a crime, and I follow all the gun laws of my state.
I don't oppose law abiding citizens owning reasonable weapons in accordance with their state laws.
I just don't believe there is an individual federal constitutional right to do so.
It's up to the states to decide.
It is not up to the States to decide. The 2A applies to all states equally, if I could own an AR in Maine, should be able to own one in California, or anywhere in between. The Heller ruling declares the 2A as an individual right, and extents to "common firearms." Is it up to your respective state which amendments apply? What if your state legislators enacted a law that limited free speech, is that up to the state too? This is seriously all about individual freedom; punish criminals and keep weapons away from the insane, not law abiding citizens.
Shakspar

Francesville, IN

#890 Apr 10, 2013
To force REGIS prostration "registration" upon citizens by a government who then secrets that info is traitorious .
Shakspar

Francesville, IN

#891 Apr 10, 2013
DavidQ762 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not quite, dolt:
The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings
on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY, wherever the derivative may be found, RESIDES IN THE PEOPLE ALONE, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other. TRUTH, no less than decency, requires that the event in every case should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents."--James Madison, The Federalist No. 46, Tuesday, January 29, 1788.
"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed."
Can take no action without resolution , Exactly what I tried to confer . Some you cannot reason with they must be set aside without a voice of reason since theirs is the voice of unreason .
Charlie Tuna

United States

#895 Apr 10, 2013
Seems the Democrats are so busy talking about how they won they haven't noticed how the Republicans have derailed their spending, and passing goofy bills.
Sir Bucking Fastard

UK

#896 Apr 10, 2013
Charlie Tuna wrote:
Seems the Democrats are so busy talking about how they won they haven't noticed how the Republicans have derailed their spending, and passing goofy bills.
That could be, maybe?

Didn't Mark Twain have something to remark of, regarding your Congress ...?

Or would that have been Will Rogers?

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#898 Apr 11, 2013
OkieDarren wrote:
<quoted text>
And of course, even the most extreme right of our court, the most conservative in US history, realize what seems to escape you...that reasonable gun safety laws do NOT violate the 2nd Amendment. It is NOT a right to as many as you want of whatever weapon you want no matter who you are or what you've done. The people have a right to safe streets and communities.
Yeah right. Let me know where those safe streets and communities are located. What you have a right to is to defend yourself should trouble make it's way to you. You do NOT make the streets safer by infringing on the rights of the law-abiding by passing laws that only they will follow. In fact criminals PREFER more gun control laws. It makes their chosen lifetstyle MUCH easier knowing their next victim won't be able to put up much a defense. At least not one with an effective weapon.

Some neighborhoods or areas may be "safer" than others, but no neighborhood or street is truly "safe". I live in what statistically is the safest neighborhood in my city/town. My neighbor's house has been broken into and vandalized TWICE in the 13 years I have lived here. So please share with the crown where this so-called safe town is located.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#899 Apr 11, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I understand you didn't care one way or the other if your fellow servicemembers had the same rights & benefits as you did.
I guess that better than outright opposition, but that's neither here nor there anymore.
Your reading comprehension skills are deplorable. I said I didn't care if they were gay. I treated them no different than any straight person who worked for me or with me. What they did away from the ship....I could care less.

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#900 Apr 11, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
No, we were taught to think for ourselves, and recognize the hypocrisy of a bunch of white male only slave owners talking about equal rights.
They had some good ideas, but were limited by their own biases in properly carrying them out, which is why slavery existed and black & indians & women weren't allowed to vote or own property etc.
So is what you are saying is that your upbringing was filled with and continues with bias and racism. You make the perfect liberal.

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#901 Apr 11, 2013
Charlie Tuna wrote:
Seems the Democrats are so busy talking about how they won they haven't noticed how the Republicans have derailed their spending, and passing goofy bills.
There biggest problem today is if the faux sequester will limit how many bags of candy they get.
conservative crapola

Easton, PA

#902 Apr 11, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>
Notice that okiehomo's candy...the $1.64 for every dollar sent to DC...hasn't been affected. okie luv candy. And the idiot tandem of coburn/inhofe fight to protect theirs. teadead double-speak.

hahahahahahahahaha

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#903 Apr 11, 2013
Sir Bucking Fastard wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
NO SUCH THING IS TRUE!
Fourteenth Amendment:
"SECTION 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amend...
That's nice.

Irrelevant, but nice.

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.

Barack Obama Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 3 min JRB 214,664
News Federal tax hike on cigarettes is criticized by... (Mar '09) 4 min Lond dong Jack th... 18
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 4 min Agents of Corruption 384,691
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min Realtime 1,384,378
News In America, atheists are still in the closet (Apr '12) 15 min Patrick 51,160
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr Into The Night 59,546
News Obama thinks communist Vietnam should give peop... 3 hr YouDidntBuildThat 9
More from around the web