Connecticut lawmakers reach deal on 'most comprehensive' gun limits in US - Polidicks

I hope they didn't knock anything over when these politicians jerked their knees that hard.

It's funny how people get upset at any form of gun control (god forbid we make sure the people who have guns are mentally stable), but seemingly have no problem with stuff like this. [QUOTE=Fish Muffin;40126251][IMG]http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c392/imtheflash/Misc/Iwishgunsafe.jpg[/IMG] yeah, cause the guy that owns something like this is totally going to register all of his mags.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;40127004]The Civil Rights Act curtailed state's rights to conduct elections. Roe v. Wade redefined what it means to have privacy, it also curtailed state's rights to regulate abortions Gay Marriage is also another state rights issue with legalizing gay marriage.[/QUOTE] a.) go back and study what the CRA of 1964 did before trying to get in on the conversation (ffs it's probably right on the wikipedia page) b.) even [I]in[/I] any case reducing state legislation is reducing individuals rights as individuals are able to affect state policy on a much more intimate level than they can federal legislation. that's why the whole system of federalism exists, yknow. c.) the [B]entire point of the post is to demonstrate that rhetoric of "taking away my rights" has historically been used in order to hinder progress in the united states. it is utilized incredibly frequently by opponents to progressive legislation.[/B] [editline]1st April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=CabooseRvB;40127004]They're not taking away individual's rights, the court has always focused on the balance of power between Federal and States, it did not deprive citizens of their rights but merely redefine the base definition.[/QUOTE] taking away state rights is reducing individual rights to affect their own governance this is legitimately how our fucking government works.

-irrelevant, snip- [editline]1st April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=TheDecryptor;40127066]It's funny how people get upset at any form of gun control (god forbid we make sure the people who have guns are mentally stable), but seemingly have no problem with stuff like this.[/QUOTE] But there's nothing wrong with that. He's storing them, he's not going on a rampage nor threatening people with them. He's obeying the law.

I wonder if Colt, Marlin, and Wildey will leave the state now. Maybe

[QUOTE=cqbcat;40127038]There should be no regulation. Give the American people a carte blanche to decide what they need/want to defend themselves with. Punish the criminals.[/QUOTE] have you ever tried seeing who might have been involved in a murder if there were no databases ever its like people get fingerprinted to get a license but god forbid the goberment know that they have 2 grandfathered magazines

[QUOTE=LordCrypto;40127118] its like people get fingerprinted to get a license but god forbid the goberment know that they have 2 grandfathered magazines[/QUOTE] But it will do [I]nothing[/I] to stop crime whatsoever. It's a feel good bill that will only waste time and money.

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;40127072]a.) go back and study what the CRA of 1964 did before trying to get in on the conversation (ffs it's probably right on the wikipedia page) b.) even [I]in[/I] any case reducing state legislation is reducing individuals rights as individuals are able to affect state policy on a much more intimate level than they can federal legislation. that's why the whole system of federalism exists, yknow. c.) the [B]entire point of the post is to demonstrate that rhetoric of "taking away my rights" has historically been used in order to hinder progress in the united states. it is utilized incredibly frequently by opponents to progressive legislation.[/B] [editline]1st April 2013[/editline] taking away state rights is reducing individual rights to affect their own governance this is legitimately how our fucking government works.[/QUOTE] I legitimately do not see how fucking over law-abiding gun owners is in any way progressive. If you want to curtail crime, you simply do not treat law-abiding citizens like criminals. How will forcing ordinary citizens to register their magazines curb violent acts [i]not committed by those citizens?[/i]

[QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;40127133]I legitimately do not see how fucking over law-abiding gun owners is in any way progressive. If you want to curtail crime, you simply do not treat law-abiding citizens like criminals. How will forcing ordinary citizens to register their magazines curb violent acts [i]not committed by those citizens?[/i][/QUOTE] I legitimately do not see how fucking over law-abiding car drivers is in any way progressive. If you want to curtail crime, you simply do not treat law-abiding citizens like criminals. How will forcing ordinary citizens to register their cars curb violent acts [i]not committed by those citizens?[/i]

[QUOTE=Inplabth;40126756]Good thing mag changes take more than 3 seconds. Oh wait. They don't.[/QUOTE] cool then i guess you don't need those 30 round mags in the first place

a.) Yeah, I know basic grade school spiel. You should know that the legislation effectively placed the voting procedures in the hands of the federal government and regulate how states run their elections. You don't see retarded streams of red tape meant to keep minorities out. b.) Yeah, and they can bring it up to the court well, those landmark cases are meant to keep the states from going out of control, look at Alabama before the CRA or the South in general that prompted the court to decide on Brown v. BOE 'taking away' state rights is another way of saying of keeping them in check. Do you recall the last few times that states try to take things into their own hands when it came to voting or determining whether or not it may keep swathes of slaves in their back yard?

[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;40127159]a.) Yeah, I know basic grade school spiel. You should know that the legislation effectively placed the voting procedures in the hands of the federal government and regulate how states run their elections. You don't see retarded streams of red tape meant to keep minorities out.[/quote] talking about restrictions to public goods bro [quote]b.) Yeah, and they can bring it up to the court well, those landmark cases are meant to keep the states from going out of control, look at Alabama before the CRA or the South in general that prompted the court to decide on Brown v. BOE 'taking away' state rights is another way of saying of keeping them in check. Do you recall the last few times that states try to take things into their own hands when it came to voting or determining whether or not it may keep swathes of slaves in their back yard?[/QUOTE] righto i agree taking away is keeping rights in check, which is precisely why the right to bear arms needs to be kept in check.

Not to nitpick or anything but isn't the main point of the second amendment that the people should have a right to be as well armed as any standing military raised by the government? In that case, shouldn't then citizens technically have a right to own uav drones and tanks and whatever if they so wish and can afford it? Just for the record imo it's ridiculous to hoard guns because "they're cool" or whatever and that nobody can really ever need a 30 round magazine for anything, but not needing something is a retarded basis for legislation. If everything we didn't need was banned, life would be so dull I'd probably kill myself. By gunshot undoubtedly :v:

[QUOTE=Inplabth;40127246]Oh are we going to hit the "but then why do you NEED them" argument again? Basing legislation off whether or not you need something is stupid and assumes that people will do stupid shit if the government doesn't regulate them. Most people are good people who have no intention of doing harm to others, and gun owners are people. I'll throw out the fact that the Dept. of Homeland Security seems to think that an AR-15 with 30 round magazines is good for close quarters defense, i.e. a personal defense rifle. Hell they even say that it should be select fire. [[url=https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=d791b6aa0fd9d3d8833b2efa08300033&tab=core&_cview=0]Source, see Section C[/url]] Not to mention there always is the fact that [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html]have no duty to protect me, my family, or my friends[/url]. [B]If the police aren't required to protect me, why am I not allowed to defend myself and the people that I care for to the best of my ability?[/B][/QUOTE] tbh i'm not sure why i even bother trying to talk to you guys at this point i've explicitly stated in nearly every gun thread i've ever been in that i am not advocating for the ban of guns nor am i even in support of the assault weapons ban. all i said was that 30 round mags are unnecessary and legislation that could make them more difficult to obtain for use in a crime is a good idea but you're so hysteric and up in arms about this whole debate that you instantly jump to the conclusion that i want obama to send a SWAT team to your house and personally remove all of your guns or something just because i don't think 30 round mags are necessary

tbh long guns aren't even a problem, handguns ought to be outright banned completely [editline]2nd April 2013[/editline] and obama should personally come to everyone's doors take their guns fuck their wives and dogs

Okay then, 30-round magazines are no longer necessary. Now someone commits a mass murder spree with a bolt-action, or some pump-shotgun. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Texas_massacre[/url] Oh, alright, weapons that have a 5-round chamber and stripper clips are now to be registered. Then somebody starts a mass-killing with a glock or some sidearm, or crimerate has failed to drop. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Va_tech_massacre[/url] Alright, any pistol that has a 15-20 round magazine is to be registered and it shouldn't be necessary. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_bundy[/url] Hey lets ban fucking hands because they can strangle women. The point is, is that when will the Goverment stop after it puts a leash on 'high-capacity' magazine sales? When will the next psychotic murderer decide to get his hands on another means to kill bystanders. The Government is going to be constantly spurred by fearmongering after some tragic event to enact more legislation, thinking that their word magically stops crime. Look at Congresswoman Giffords, Sandy Hook, even Colombine.

[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;40127309]Okay then, 30-round magazines are no longer necessary. Now someone commits a mass murder spree with a bolt-action, or some pump-shotgun. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Texas_massacre[/url] Oh, alright, weapons that have a 5-round chamber and stripper clips are now to be registered. Then somebody starts a mass-killing with a glock or some sidearm, or crimerate has failed to drop. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Va_tech_massacre[/url] Alright, any pistol that has a 15-20 round magazine is to be registered and it shouldn't be necessary.[/QUOTE] actually yeah all firearms should be registered did you think you would catch me offguard by proposing we register firearms or something lol [editline]2nd April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=BrickInHead;40127288]tbh long guns aren't even a problem, handguns ought to be outright banned completely [editline]2nd April 2013[/editline] and obama should personally come to everyone's doors take their guns fuck their wives and dogs[/QUOTE] honestly i'm disappointed obama hasn't started burning churches yet

[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;40127309]Okay then, 30-round magazines are no longer necessary. Now someone commits a mass murder spree with a bolt-action, or some pump-shotgun. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Texas_massacre[/url] Oh, alright, weapons that have a 5-round chamber and stripper clips are now to be registered. Then somebody starts a mass-killing with a glock or some sidearm, or crimerate has failed to drop. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Va_tech_massacre[/url] Alright, any pistol that has a 15-20 round magazine is to be registered and it shouldn't be necessary. The point is, is that when will the Goverment stop after it puts a leash on 'high-capacity' magazine sales? When will the next psychotic murderer decide to get his hands on another means to kill bystanders. The Government is going to be constantly spurred by fearmongering after some tragic event to enact more legislation, thinking that their word magically stops crime. Look at Congresswoman Giffords, Sandy Hook, even Colombine.[/QUOTE] this sort of slippery slope argument is hilarious, yes they're going to regulate me to 10 rounds very soon they'll be chopping off my arms and legs so i can only roll around on the floor there's fearmongering on both sides, and currently the best pro's at fearmongering are pro-gun advocates saying that the government is going to come take your guns when the government really isn't even remotely threatening to do that

i also find it hilarious that a pro-gun advocate is using mass murders perpetrated using the very tools they advocate for [editline]2nd April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Fourm Shark;40127345]Even if somehow a law got passed banning handguns, it would change very little. You have to remember that most criminals don't register their guns, and many handguns used in crimes are either stolen or bought on the black market. All banning handguns would do would ensure that law following citizens no longer have access to one of the most effective home defense weapons and deterrence. Crimes would still happen as they always have for at least a decade before the handgun density dwindled down. Outright banning of anything widely used results in little change aside from more incarcerations. And god knows we need more of those in this country. Take a look at the drug war, for example.[/QUOTE] banning the production sale and ownership of a handgun would reduce the overall amount of handguns in the united states and that restriction would be represented in the black market, prices for handguns would skyrocket and their proliferation in low rung crime would diminish significantly. just because it would take some time means that we obviously shouldn't take any steps to fixing the issue

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;40127288]handguns ought to be outright banned completely[/QUOTE] Fuck that, I'll get rid of my handgun when I can find another way to stop from being murdered

AAAHHH YES WE HAVE REACHED THE POINT IN OUR CONVERSATION WHERE WE RELATE DRUGS TO GUNS

[QUOTE=Fourm Shark;40127345]Even if somehow a law got passed banning handguns, it would change very little. You have to remember that most criminals don't register their guns, and many handguns used in crimes are either stolen or bought on the black market. All banning handguns would do would ensure that law following citizens no longer have access to one of the most effective home defense weapons and deterrence. Crimes would still happen as they always have for at least a decade before the handgun density dwindled down. Outright banning of anything widely used results in little change aside from more incarcerations. And god knows we need more of those in this country. Take a look at the drug war, for example.[/QUOTE] need citations and lots of them on top of that, you don't think that a ban on handguns would in some way limit people's access to the weapons? i've made this point a million times but you guys seem to be incapable of soaking this in. the black market isn't a magical sinkhole full of weapons that anyone can stroll to. for the non seasoned criminal with no connections to organized crime, the black market doesn't really fucking exist. you might be able to weasel your way into a craigslist / backpage deal, but so can the ATF who can set up sting operations and make popular methods of organizing private sales unsafe for potential buyers and sellers. you can't just use "black market" to wave away the effects that gun control legislation will inevitably have

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;40127349]i also find it hilarious that a pro-gun advocate is using mass murders perpetrated using the very tools they advocate for [editline]2nd April 2013[/editline] banning the production sale and ownership of a handgun would reduce the overall amount of handguns in the united states and that restriction would be represented in the black market, prices for handguns would skyrocket and their proliferation in low rung crime would diminish significantly. just because it would take some time means that we obviously shouldn't take any steps to fixing the issue[/QUOTE] Ok let's think about this hypothetically. Guns are gone. Poof. No more guns in the US. Let's also hypothetically say that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for criminals to acquire guns(which it will never be). Now what?

[QUOTE=Milkyway M16;40127481]Ok let's think about this hypothetically. Guns are gone. Poof. No more guns in the US. Let's also hypothetically say that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for criminals to acquire guns(which it will never be). Now what?[/QUOTE] we revel in our newfound powers of alchemy and witchcraft and our drastically lower homicide rates

[QUOTE=Kopimi;40127378]need citations and lots of them on top of that, you don't think that a ban on handguns would in some way limit people's access to the weapons? i've made this point a million times but you guys seem to be incapable of soaking this in. the black market isn't a magical sinkhole full of weapons that anyone can stroll to. for the non seasoned criminal with no connections to organized crime, the black market doesn't really fucking exist. you might be able to weasel your way into a craigslist / backpage deal, but so can the ATF who can set up sting operations and make popular methods of organizing private sales unsafe for potential buyers and sellers. you can't just use "black market" to wave away the effects that gun control legislation will inevitably have[/QUOTE] "Black Market" simply refers to buying an illegal item/substance/anything by illegal means. I could potentially walk down the street to a neighbor's house, buy something illegal, and that would be considered "Black Market." [editline]2nd April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Kopimi;40127514]we revel in our newfound powers of alchemy and witchcraft and our drastically lower homicide rates[/QUOTE] Too bad homicide rates wouldn't lower. People have found ways to kill each other for thousands of years, and you think by removing one of those tools, they simply wouldn't do it anymore.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;40127378]need citations and lots of them on top of that, you don't think that a ban on handguns would in some way limit people's access to the weapons? i've made this point a million times but you guys seem to be incapable of soaking this in. the black market isn't a magical sinkhole full of weapons that anyone can stroll to. for the non seasoned criminal with no connections to organized crime, the black market doesn't really fucking exist. you might be able to weasel your way into a craigslist / backpage deal, but so can the ATF who can set up sting operations and make popular methods of organizing private sales unsafe for potential buyers and sellers. you can't just use "black market" to wave away the effects that gun control legislation will inevitably have[/QUOTE] Let me try and explain why banning guns wouldn't work. Follow me closely bro. How to get a banned firearm into the USA in three easy steps: Cross the border into Mexico. Buy whatever gun (or explosive, or whatever) you want that is illegal, from the cartels. Smuggle your banned goods across our monumentally shitty border security. Congratulations, you now have a banned weapon!

Also since we're in a thread about magazine size limits, go ahead and tell me exactly how useful it would be to the police/government to know how many 30 round magazines someone has. Tell me [I]exactly[/I] what that would accomplish.

[QUOTE=Milkyway M16;40127530]Too bad homicide rates wouldn't lower. People have found ways to kill each other for thousands of years, and you think by removing one of those tools, they simply wouldn't do it anymore.[/QUOTE] Do you understand the difference between the phrases 'it decreases' and 'it disappears completely'? The idea that [I]precisely as many people would die[/I] whether there are guns freely available to the civilian market or not is just unfounded.

[QUOTE=viper shtf;40127616]Let me try and explain why banning guns wouldn't work. Follow me closely bro. How to get a banned firearm into the USA in three easy steps: Cross the border into Mexico. Buy whatever gun (or explosive, or whatever) you want that is illegal, from the cartels. Smuggle your banned goods across our monumentally shitty border security. Congratulations, you now have a banned weapon![/QUOTE] It's easier than that. Let's say guns are outright banned in the US. No problem. Walk down the street, visit a neighbor, pick up a preban weapon.

[QUOTE=viper shtf;40127616]Let me try and explain why banning guns wouldn't work. Follow me closely bro. How to get a banned firearm into the USA in three easy steps: Cross the border into Mexico. Buy whatever gun (or explosive, or whatever) you want that is illegal, from the cartels. Smuggle your banned goods across our monumentally shitty border security. Congratulations, you now have a banned weapon![/QUOTE] In what sense is this easy or even just as easy as purchasing one at a legal store? Are you really going to argue that it's just as easy for the average person (or average criminal) to do that? [editline]1st April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Milkyway M16;40127628]It's easier than that. Let's say guns are outright banned in the US. No problem. Walk down the street, visit a neighbor, pick up a preban weapon.[/QUOTE] Do firearms flow like air now? How much are you willing to simplify a market to suit your argument?