Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: thank you connecticut

Posted 11 years ago on April 2, 2013, 9:45 p.m. EST by mideast (506)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

9 Comments

9 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by ericweiss (575) 11 years ago

Senator NcKinney - the CT R leader strongly supported this bill BRAVO!

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by Shule (2638) 11 years ago

Second amendment is there so that one can defend oneself against the government. Great! and let us think about that. Now, if I were to go up against the U.S. Government with my six shooter, ok my AK-47 auto, against all the ammo they got who do you think is going to win? Sense says with my petty weapons that is not a good idea. I better think of something else. So, what is the big deal with some common sense gun laws...

Thank you Connecticut.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 11 years ago

The problem we seem to overlook is that archaic provisions of the 2ment were to protect US and OUR gubmint, NOT fight it, that's treason!!! And stupid... do the gun nuts know that Black Hawks are real??

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by mideast (506) 11 years ago

me
Wacky wayne and other opponents of the expanded use of background checks to prevent firearms getting into the hands of felons and others who shouldn’t be allowed access to deadly weapons frequently make the argument that a criminal isn’t going to try to purchase a weapon legally, and that he or she will simply go to some inner-city street corner to buy an illegal gun.

In fact, background checks do work to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Between November 1998, and February 2013,

FBI statistics prove more than one million attempts to purchase weapons were denied as a result of federally-mandated background checks.

More than 58 percent of these denials were due to the applicant being convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year or a misdemeanor punishable by more than two years.
Another 10 percent were due to the applicant being convicted of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence Conviction.
Almost 10 percent were fugitives from justice. Many were arrested when they came back to pick up their gun!

Yet, it is estimated that 40 percent of all gun sales are transacted without any background check at all because of loopholes such as the gun show rule, in which a private gun owner can sell a gun to another private person at a gun show without any check at all.

There’s no need to look for the apocryphal street corner —
just head for the nearest gun show.
We need universal background checks now.

Robert Checchio

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 0 points by freakzilla3 (-75) 11 years ago

Now they can move onto mental health.

http://connecticut.cbslocal.com/2012/12/17/connecticut-mental-health-bill-defeated-months-before-deadly-school-shooting/

"Had the AOT bill been passed, it would have given the state the right to institutionalize a person who is mentally ill for treatment if the state has enough evidence to believe that the person could be a danger to himself or the community."

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 0 points by mideast (506) 11 years ago

The recent terrible murders in Texas -
I wonder how many guns the victims had to protect themselves?

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 0 points by freakzilla3 (-75) 11 years ago

Thank god someone had a gun here. Why wasn't this bigger news?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/17/san-antonio-movie-theater-shooting_n_2315139.html

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by mideast (506) 11 years ago

shot by a sheriff's deputy - not a gun nut
so the police did thier job - not very big news
but you did not answer the simple question

The recent terrible murders in Texas -
I wonder how many guns the victims had to protect themselves?

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] -1 points by freakzilla3 (-75) 11 years ago

I answered on another thread. Odds are they did have guns, but owning a gun is no guarantee that you won't be shot. Hell, soldiers carry guns and look what can happen to them.

Here's this if it makes you happier. I'm not a gun nut and don't mind new laws, but have to admit guns do save lives sometimes. There are multiple examples out there.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/20891/oregon-gun-owner-stops-clackamas-shooting-spree-proving-guns-save-lives

You should drop this argument. Just because a gun owner was shot and killed doesn't mean that guns offer no protection. Plus, you risk sounding cruel when you use a death to make a point. Check out Michael Moore's recent tweet about guns. Not cool.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply