And more gun owners push back....

[freyasman]

http://news.yahoo.com/conn-lawmakers-revise-gun-control-131456479.html
"The bill's passage comes as the state faces the first legal challenges to the gun control law. A group of Connecticut organizations that support gun rights, pistol permit holders and gun sellers filed a lawsuit in federal court last month against Malloy and other state officials, arguing the state's new gun control law violates their constitutional rights. "

"Sen. Joe Markley, R-Southington said it reflects the "faulty premises" of the original legislation. He was the only senator to oppose Monday's bill.
"I think if we acknowledge that we are putting law enforcement officers at risk by limiting their ability to defend themselves," he said, "I think we have to acknowledge that we're putting homeowners at risk by limiting their ability to defend themselves."

I think what a lot of people fail to grasp is that most people are not involved in the political process; they simply don't know or care what the laws are, or what laws are being proposed. When they are made aware of laws like this that are an infringement of their rights, they react with a great deal of outrage and they contact their representatives and advise them to knock it the hell off; that's why so few of these asinine proposals actually became law, and the few that did are being challenged. Many people on this board say over and over, that "the majority of Americans want more gun restrictions"; I don't think that's true. I think the majority of Americans don't give a damn what the gun laws are, and don't vote in any case. When they do decide to get involved, proposed gun restrictions get thrown out, and politicians get fired. Most people don't vote; that's not the same thing as "most people want gun control"....

 

[as seen on tv]

this is likely to end up the same as all the previous gun control laws - and roe v. wade. consitutional rulings upholding the right to bear arms, just like there is a consitutional expectation on the right to medical privacy and freedom, which is even LESS well defined in the bill of rights

 

[freyasman]

"The revisions expand the list of inspectors and enforcement officers who can legally possess and purchase the banned firearms to include sworn and certified officers at the department of motor vehicles, the chief state's attorney office, the department of energy and environmental protection and some constables with police certification. It exempts such officers from the certificate requirement for long gun ownership, and allows them to maintain possession of assault weapons and large capacity magazines after their service ends by registering them. "

What these new revisions do, is make it clear that the people who will be able to possess these weapons and accesories, are people in the employ of the state government, rather than those peons, (excuse me, I mean "citizens") that they are supposedly working for.

 

[NightSwimmer]

You know, when being paranoid that "they" are in a constant struggle to emasculate you by taking your little gun away from you becomes the only thing that gives your life meaning, then you should seriously consider doing more with your life.

 

[trapdoor]

You know, when being paranoid that "they" are in a constant struggle to emasculate you by taking your little gun away from you becomes the only thing that gives your life meaning, then you should seriously consider doing more with your life.

You know you're being insulting, rather than discussing issues, when you drag emasculation into a discussion of a constitutional issue. My guns don't "give my life meaning" -- they're merely a hobby I pursue.

 

[freyasman]

You know, when being paranoid that "they" are in a constant struggle to emasculate you by taking your little gun away from you becomes the only thing that gives your life meaning, then you should seriously consider doing more with your life.

Why would you say something like that? Why the effort to demean someone who simply wants his rights given the same respect as that of any one else in the country? Is there any legal or ethical basis for denying someone these rights? And if not, why would you insult someone for calling the politicians out on it?

 

[Arkady]

http://news.yahoo.com/conn-lawmakers-revise-gun-control-131456479.html
"The bill's passage comes as the state faces the first legal challenges to the gun control law. A group of Connecticut organizations that support gun rights, pistol permit holders and gun sellers filed a lawsuit in federal court last month against Malloy and other state officials, arguing the state's new gun control law violates their constitutional rights. "

"Sen. Joe Markley, R-Southington said it reflects the "faulty premises" of the original legislation. He was the only senator to oppose Monday's bill.
"I think if we acknowledge that we are putting law enforcement officers at risk by limiting their ability to defend themselves," he said, "I think we have to acknowledge that we're putting homeowners at risk by limiting their ability to defend themselves."

I think what a lot of people fail to grasp is that most people are not involved in the political process; they simply don't know or care what the laws are, or what laws are being proposed. When they are made aware of laws like this that are an infringement of their rights, they react with a great deal of outrage and they contact their representatives and advise them to knock it the hell off; that's why so few of these asinine proposals actually became law, and the few that did are being challenged. Many people on this board say over and over, that "the majority of Americans want more gun restrictions"; I don't think that's true. I think the majority of Americans don't give a damn what the gun laws are, and don't vote in any case. When they do decide to get involved, proposed gun restrictions get thrown out, and politicians get fired. Most people don't vote; that's not the same thing as "most people want gun control"....

If overall sentiment were as hostile to gun control as gun proponents like to pretend, the Second Amendment would be extraneous. The whole reason that gun-rights people focus so heavily on the Second Amendment is that they know that if the will of the people were enacted, we'd have much stricter gun laws, so they need a trump card that overrides gun control. This is also why gun law opponents tend to rely on filibusters, gerrymandering, and other counter-democratic forces.

 

[trapdoor]

If overall sentiment were as hostile to gun control as gun proponents like to pretend, the Second Amendment would be extraneous. The whole reason that gun-rights people focus so heavily on the Second Amendment is that they know that if the will of the people were enacted, we'd have much stricter gun laws, so they need a trump card that overrides gun control. This is also why gun law opponents tend to rely on filibusters, gerrymandering, and other counter-democratic forces.

Overall sentiment is neither hostile nor anti-hostile to gun control. Overall sentiment is pretty uninformed, which is why I dismiss most polls. Sure, a lot of polls show the public favoring "universal" background checks, but those polls don't drill down to the details of the background check legislation. I'm not saying the polls are "skewed" but I will say they're insufficient when it comes to measuring the public attitudes about the details of most such legislation.

And yes, the will of the people does not trump the Constitution unless the people are willing to ratify a new amendment. Did the will of the people trump the 18th Amendment, or were we required to pass a new amendment to delete its provisions? Same thing.

 

[freyasman]

If overall sentiment were as hostile to gun control as gun proponents like to pretend, the Second Amendment would be extraneous. The whole reason that gun-rights people focus so heavily on the Second Amendment is that they know that if the will of the people were enacted, we'd have much stricter gun laws, so they need a trump card that overrides gun control. This is also why gun law opponents tend to rely on filibusters, gerrymandering, and other counter-democratic forces.

I think that if we were able to get the majority of Americans to actually get involved in the political process and vote on issues, the laws of this country would look very different than they do today. Most Americans simply don't get involved unless it's an issue they feel strongly about, and that's a shame IMO.

 

[NightSwimmer]

Why would you say something like that? Why the effort to demean someone who simply wants his rights given the same respect as that of any one else in the country? Is there any legal or ethical basis for denying someone these rights? And if not, why would you insult someone for calling the politicians out on it?

I didn't mean it as an insult, but as constructive criticism. All that I know about you is what you post here on PJ. Based upon what you post, you are a one trick pony with a tired, stale trick. I've been hearing this crap for probably twice as long as you've walked this Earth. I'm not worried about anyone taking my guns. I gave up on worrying about that 30 or 40 years ago.

 

[trapdoor]

I didn't mean it as an insult, but as constructive criticism. All that I know about you is what you post here on PJ. Based upon what you post, you are a one trick pony with a tired, stale trick. I've been hearing this crap for probably twice as long as you've walked this Earth. I'm not worried about anyone taking my guns. I gave up on worrying about that 30 or 40 years ago.

Pull the other one. It has bells on. When you talk about people being worried that, "emasculate you by taking your little gun away from you becomes the only thing that gives your life meaning" you aren't being constructive, or even criticizing -- you're merely being insulting.

 

[NightSwimmer]

Pull the other one. It has bells on. When you talk about people being worried that, "emasculate you by taking your little gun away from you becomes the only thing that gives your life meaning" you aren't being constructive, or even criticizing -- you're merely being insulting.

Okay. It was also insulting. Still, I consider it to primarily consist of constructive criticism. The insult simply added a little flair.

 

[trapdoor]

Okay. It was also insulting. Still, I consider it to primarily consist of constructive criticism. The insult simply added a little flair.

Except that there's nothing constructive about it. If I believe that anti-gun political forces in this country want to take firearms away from me, it is not because I made it up -- it's because for much of my life that's exactly what they stated they want to do. Now they've changed statements, and changed tactics. I have no reason to believe they've changed their goals.

 

[marvin martian]

Why would you say something like that? Why the effort to demean someone who simply wants his rights given the same respect as that of any one else in the country? Is there any legal or ethical basis for denying someone these rights? And if not, why would you insult someone for calling the politicians out on it?

That's what stooges do...

 

[freyasman]

I didn't mean it as an insult, but as constructive criticism. All that I know about you is what you post here on PJ. Based upon what you post, you are a one trick pony with a tired, stale trick. I've been hearing this crap for probably twice as long as you've walked this Earth. I'm not worried about anyone taking my guns. I gave up on worrying about that 30 or 40 years ago.

If you say things like that to people, but then try to say "I didn't really mean that", you come off as both dishonest and cowardly. I have one area of politics that I feel strongly about and can speak intelligently about, so that's what I post about. If you have a problem with that, well you are not required to respond, so feel free to [Unwelcome language removed] off....

 

[NightSwimmer]

If you say things like that to people, but then try to say "I didn't really mean that", you come off as both dishonest and cowardly. I have one area of politics that I feel strongly about and can speak intelligently about, so that's what I post about. If you have a problem with that, well you are not required to respond, so feel free to [Unwelcome language removed] off....

I reserve the right to engage in colorful debate and good-natured ribbing on this forum, so long as it doesn't cross the line of hateful, bigoted or vulgar personal insults. It would be a boring place otherwise. I don't think that I crossed the line with my comments, and I honestly find the repetitious posting of the same tired, old complaints incredibly tiresome -- whether it's United States bashing, Vaccine or GMO paranoia or gun fetishism.

 

[NightSwimmer]

If you say things like that to people, but then try to say "I didn't really mean that", you come off as both dishonest and cowardly. I have one area of politics that I feel strongly about and can speak intelligently about, so that's what I post about. If you have a problem with that, well you are not required to respond, so feel free to [Unwelcome language removed] off....

BTW: I never said "I didn't mean that". I did.

 

[freyasman]

I reserve the right to engage in colorful debate and good-natured ribbing on this forum, so long as it doesn't cross the line of hateful, bigoted or vulgar personal insults. It would be a boring place otherwise. I don't think that I crossed the line with my comments, and I honestly find the repetitious posting of the same tired, old complaints incredibly tiresome -- whether it's United States bashing, Vaccine or GMO paranoia or gun fetishism.

And I reserve the right to post, (or not) on topics of my choosing; you are under no obligation to involve yourself in the conversation, you chose to and were deliberately insulting when you did. That does cross the line....

 

[freyasman]

BTW: I never said "I didn't mean that". I did.

And I meant it when I said you can "[Unwelcome language removed] off"....

 

[wookie-leeks]

You know, when being paranoid that "they" are in a constant struggle to emasculate you by taking your little gun away from you becomes the only thing that gives your life meaning, then you should seriously consider doing more with your life.

Personal ownership of "small arms" is part of what makes America what it is. If you take that away it's just another has been European state.

Personally I think it's a good thing Joe Blow can get him an AR 15 following a back ground check, and walk out in 30 minutes or less.

If for no other reason than to piss liberals off.