Connecticut Taking Guns Away – Texas Group Giving Guns Away

On Monday, the Connecticut state legislature approved a set of gun control laws that would make it the strictest state in the nation.  Democrats pushed for even tougher laws, but ended up having to partially compromise with Republicans.

The new gun control laws (more accurately ‘people control’ laws) would ban over 100 types of high powered rifles – specifically assault and all assault-style rifles.  Additionally, the state would require anyone wishing to purchase a rifle, shotgun, and even ammunition to undergo a thorough background check and training, before being issued a state certificate of eligibility that would allow them to make the purchase. In order to receive the certificate, even to buy a box of .22 caliber shells for target practice, a person must be fingerprinted, take a firearms training class, pass a criminal background check AND pass a background check to see if they have ever been committed to a psychiatric hospital.

High capacity magazines, those that hold more than 10 rounds, would be banned from purchase.  Anyone who currently owns a high capacity magazine would be required to register it with the state.

Connecticut officials believe that removing guns from the hands of the public will create a safer environment, even though statistics from around the US and world prove otherwise.

While Connecticut is doing everything it can to disarm its citizens, a group in Texas is expanding their efforts to put shotguns in the hands of qualified people who live in high crime areas.

Armed Citizen Project began in Houston and was recently copied in Tucson, Arizona.  They are now expanding their program into Dallas.  The group raises funds to use to train and arm citizens and single women who live in high crime areas so that they can defend themselves and their property.

In order to get the free shotgun (remember Joe Biden’s “Buy a shotgun”?), the person must undergo and pass a background check and complete a firearms training program and have lived at their current address for at least one year.

One South Dallas resident, Calvin Carter, is happy to see the program coming to his area.  Last year, there was a confrontation between rival gangs right behind his house.  Police had to respond in riot gear and one gang member was shot and killed by the police.  Carter told the local news:

“It sounds good but you have to be careful.”

“It’s good to be able to have weapons in case something happens to you or your family when you’re not there, that weapon could save them.”

Of course the news always has to show at least one interview with an anti-gun person like they did here.  I wonder if that lady would feel the same way if she was attacked and had no way to defend herself or if someone with a gun came to her rescue and did defend her?

Two states with different philosophies. Connecticut is one of the liberal Democratic strongholds and Texas is a bastion of Republican conservatism.  Connecticut believes in keeping their people defenseless and making them easier prey for criminals.  Texas believes in arming their people so they can defend themselves.

If you had a choice between the two states, which would you rather live in?



  • Screeminmeeme

    No contest. The state that protects and celebrates liberty.

    It will be interesting to watch how the economy of Connecticut fares if a lot of people decide to move to states where there is less gun control, as well as what will happen when criminals realize that fewer people are armed. These reactionary laws might make the officials in Ct feel better about themselves, knowing that they did something in response to the school shooting....but in the end they don't address the real problems which underlie these senseless acts of violence.

    Seems to me that it would be helpful to first understand and then address what generates and triggers these behaviors before passing knee-jerk laws which breach the 2nd Amendment.

    • Carl Stevenson

      Doing exactly the wrong thing is a badge of stupidity (or evil), not a badge of honor.

    • jong

      And those that wish to be law abiding will now have to break Connecticut's Law to obey the higher one in the Constitution. Making criminals out of them because all they have to do is buy it on the street or bring it back from out of state.

    • boondoggles

      Their agenda is being passed down to them from higher ups. They know that the second amendment is the only thing standing in the way of tyranny. I hope every patriot has the name of the ones that voted against the consitution.

  • John

    "Connecticut believes in keeping their people defenseless and making them easier prey for criminals"

    How do any of the gun laws make it so that people in Connecticut can't defend themselves? How do any of the new gun laws make the people of CT defenseless? Do they not have fingers for fingerprinting? Can they not fill in a form for background check?

    • Alupara

      It's so simple! Why couldn't I see that too? Stupid me. Why, right now, I can see all the gang bangers in Hartford, New Haven, Bridgeport and New London all forming lines to be fingerprinted.

      • John

        How do you think guns end up on the black market? They come from legal channels.

        • NewCreationDave

          Yes, corrupt cops and politicians

        • John

          Can you explain how, in one year of ATF inspections, where they only were able to inspect 20% of all licensed gun dealers, they found 62,000 firearms that disappeared without any financial record or background check?

          They only inspect ONE FIFTH and find 62,000 firearms missing? And then we wonder how criminals get their guns? What a joke.

        • fliteking

          John avoids discussion of Fast and Furious, a program morphed into gun sales to drug cartels by his King . . . and further, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of men, women and children . . .. all with the hope of making an anti-constitutional statement.

          The liberals have blood on their hands . . . again.

          John hopes to be taken seriously by using lies and faulty logic.

        • John

          Here are the results of the F&F investigations:

          You bringing up Fast and the Furious conspiracies is also silly. Did you not see the results of the the different investigations?

          "While we found no evidence that the agents responsible for the cases had improper motives or were trying to accomplish anything other
          than dismantling a dangerous firearms trafficking organization, we concluded
          that the conduct and supervision of the investigations was significantly flawed." Page 431 A "joint staff report" prepared for House Oversight Committee chairman
          Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) found that: "The operation's goal was to establish a nexus between straw purchasers
          of assault-style weapons in the United States and Mexican
          drug-trafficking organizations (DTOs) operating on both sides of the
          United States-Mexico border."The link is no longer valid, I'm sure you can find it though:" We found no evidence that contradicted Melson’s statements to us concerning the long gun reporting requirement; and no evidence that ATF Phoenix initiated the investigation in order to facilitate efforts to obtain long gun legislation."

          Page 263

        • Carl Stevenson

          Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and countless other murderous tyrants also "found no evidence of wrongdoing by their accomplices."

          History shows that tyrants always employ (and are supported by) people of weak character, including thugs, barbarians, and sociopathic psychopaths. They are more willing and easily persuaded to commit the tyrant's atrocities than normal people.

          Hitler would have been envious of the resources available to Obama. Several generations have been hoodwinked and brainwashed through "public education" to see the leviathan of government as their protector and provider, rather than the oppressor it has become.

          I would submit that we are at a worse place than Germany was just before Hitler's total takeover and that Obama is capable of even greater evil than Hitler and Stalin combined.

          Just think, Obama admires Mao ... He has Mao ornaments on the WH Christmas tree.

          “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” – Mao

          Obama and his inner circle revere Mao and the way he ruthlessly grabbed power in China. The fact that he murdered about 100 million Chinese to do it is, to them, a “feature,” not a “bug."

          Wake up and smell the tyranny!

        • John

          You are truly insane if you think we are worse off than Nazi Germany. Really, really insane. Like, if I knew you in real life, I would definitely be warning your relatives.

        • Alupara

          No, we are not worse off than Nazi Germany; not yet. We are closely following though in the footsteps of the pre-Nazi Germany Weimar Republic.

        • John

          In what ways, exactly?

        • Alupara

          Political division , rising prices on food and fuel and runaway spending.

        • John

          Yep, no other country outside of US and Germany have experienced this problem. These are completely unique Nazi Germany conditions and United States conditions.

        • Alupara

          A perfect example of doublespeak! A report that was "prepared" for the Oversight Committee chairman. Your presenting this here falsely implies that Darrell Issa and Chuck Grassley accepted it as Gospel. A "joint staff report"- consisting of whom? The statement, "We found no evidence" says absolutely nothing. That is circumlocution at its best. You can't defend your position so you try to mislead us with a slick argument.

        • John

          LOL. Seriously. You are hilarious.

          ""We found no evidence" says absolutely nothing"

          That's a quote for the records.

          Clearly you won't believe any evidence against what your beliefs are. Tell me, what evidence DO you have that F&F was some plot to do.....what exactly? I've shown my evidence, let's see yours.

        • Alupara

          You did not present "evidence". You presented an opinion. Did I say F&F was a plot? Those are your words, not mine. You freely make unwarranted assumptions.

        • John

          An opinion? LOL. You're hilarious. Yea, reports by the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General are "opinions".

        • Carl Stevenson

          Quislings like John will end up next to the tyrants when the people hold their modern day version of the Nuremberg Trials. (if they last that long. "Useful idiots" are usually disposed of by their tyrants once they've outlived their usefulness.)

        • fliteking

          Agreed. I am amazed at how well indoctrinated some of these fools are . . . just from text on the screen one can tell these people have never formed an original thought on their own.

          His response to my Fast and Furious reference below is a great example.

          Good to have you aboard Carl.

        • Alupara

          In one year? What year? This year, last year, next year? Those are nice round statistics John. Whose statistics are they anyway? Does ATF share their statistics with you personally?

        • John

          My figures were for 2010-2012. One of the links was dead so I just spent 30 seconds on google and look what I found.

          This relates to 2011:

          "During compliance inspections conducted in fiscal year 2011, ATF investigators identified nearly 177,500 unaccounted for firearms, which FFLs could not locate in inventory or account for by sale or other disposition. By working with industry members, IOIs reduced this number to about 18,500 unaccounted for firearms."

          Also check out this article:

        • fliteking

          John, through innuendo, blames the citizens of the USA for illegal gun sales while ignoring Fast and Furious.

          John points out the sky is blue while standing in his basement.

        • John

          I'm not blaming anyone. I'm saying that out of 20 percent of the gun sellers checked, 62 thousand guns were missing. Draw your own conclusions.

        • Brama

          Actually John, according to your links, that number is actually 18,500. Not that that isn't right, but let's get our numbers straight. And regarless of the internal review of the 'processes' of F&F, those guns obviously didn't go where they wanted them to because A) At least one Agent was killed with a gun connected to the operation B) They didn't get anywhere with F&F.... F&F failed...even if they didn't fail in following their own process. Where are those guns would be a better question to ask. And let's answer that with "They're not in the hands of traceable American citizens."

          Even if records were sloppy, I'd like to see some evidence of connection with guns purchased from a dealer and winding up in the hands of someone who was not legally supposed to have one. Those are statistics worth looking at. I'm not saying that record keeping shouldn't be spot on... unfortunately record keeping does not predict violent crime in an individual.

        • John

          I answered that already, scroll up. 18,500 was just 2011, I claimed 62 for 2010-2012.

        • John

          And I'm guessing you were not aware that Arizona judges repeatedly decided not to move on the straw buyers because of what they called lack of evidence even though there were cases of meth addicts buying 30k worth of guns in a month

        • Brama

          It sounds like an issue of compliance with existing laws. My point is that banning certain types of weapons is not the way to handle this. Banning certain weapons is an "infringement" on the 2nd amendment. That's a given. Even when Senator Feinstein was asked if she would think it was right for us to treat the 2nd amendment the same as the first and fourth amendments said No. She tried to use child p*rn0graphy as an example of non-protected free speech, but guns themselves are amoral, and you can't justify a ban on them just because she doesn't like them. You can't equate child p*rn0graphy with assualt rifles. There is no comparison. Child P*rn0graphy is, from the start, a direct and purposeful victimization of children. The ownership of assault rifles is not a direct and purposeful victimization or crime. There is no comparison.

          The problem is enforcing current laws. And criminals will always find a way to obtain firearms. I'm not saying there isn't things we can do...but banning assault rifles is not the answer, especially when it infringes on the second amendment... and especially when assault rifles are not the major weapons in crimes.

          An interesting article that looks at both sides of the issue. But even this article addresses common and understandable concerns of the current gun-violence issue without directly blaming assault rifles or the legal purchase of guns.

        • John

          "Banning certain weapons is an "infringement" on the 2nd amendment. That's a given"

          Actually, it's not a given. The 2a is not absolute, restrictions can apply.

          She brought up an exception to the first amendment, to show that exceptions do exist and the amendments are NOT absolute. Such exceptions also occur with the 2nd amendment. That was her point.

          "And criminals will always find a way to obtain firearms"

          Yes, as long as we let guns go missing from gun dealers without a trace, yes, they will get guns. And requiring gun dealers to be more vigilant and not let guns go accounted for is considered "gun control" by you guys. How RIDICULOUS is that?

          Yes, that is a good article. It shows exactly how weak our gun laws are.

        • Brama

          "Actually, it's not a given. The 2a is not absolute, restrictions can apply."

          And what we're saying is that you can't "restrict" the 2nd amendment just because you don't like assault rifles. Unless there is a clear crime or illegal nature of the possession of assault rifles, the ban is unconstitutional. And what many anti-gun activists don't realize is that our country was founded on common sense freedoms, not regulations. And when we start making "restrictions" just because we don't like certain items, it creates a slippery slope of compromising the freedoms of other constitutional rights. Besides the fact that I believe the phrase "shall not be infringed" basically blows any argument out of the water.

          Feinstein's argument was flawed, as I mentioned above, and neither you or her have provided any argument to counter the one I rebutted.

          "Yes, as long as we let guns go missing from gun dealers without a trace, yes, they will get guns. And requiring gun dealers to be more vigilant and not let guns go accounted for is considered "gun control" by you guys. How RIDICULOUS is that?"

          We're not talking about being more vigilant. Vigilance is good, but it has already been stated that no matter how hard you try, criminals will always find a way to get a firearm. I'm not saying we can't be more vigilant, but what this discussion is about is about banning certain weapons which have not been shown to be criminal in nature, except for the fact that people like Feinstein doesn't like them, or thinks they're unnecessary. But Feinstein's personal feelings do not matter when it comes to the Constitutionality of assault rifle ownership.

        • John

          "And what we're saying is that you can't "restrict" the 2nd amendment just because you don't like assault rifles."

          Why do you think you get to determine constitutionality? You have no idea what you are talking about and think that any law, that you disapprove of, is an infringement on the 2a, when in fact that is not always the case.

          What about the "well regulated" part of it? God, you guys and your OBSESSION with "shall not infringe" is so pathetic. The RIGHT to bear arms shall not be infringed. You still have the RIGHT to bear arms without assault rifles.

          I really find it frustrating when you guys always fall back to the line of "but criminals will always get guns" as an excuse to not do anything about obvious problems. It just makes no sense.

          Feinstein's bill got shot down a while ago, why do we still talk about her like she is relevant?

          NO, gun control is NOT just about banning weapons. Look up the gun control laws passed in CT and NY. Learn a bit before talking all this nonsense.

        • Brama

          What determines constitutionality John is the language in the constitution itself. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is an independent clause. What is well-regulated is the militia, not the right to keep and bear arms. That's called good English. What's pathetic is your lack of protecting a constitutional right.

          John, if you ban assault rifles, the right to keep bear arms has been infringed. Infringement does not mean the right has been taken away. Infringement means movement across a line that is not appropriate. If we had a constitution that said that the right to eat food shall not be infringed, I can't start making regulations banning doughnuts. That's because it's not about banning food altogether, but rather I have infringed, or encroached upon the right. That's what the word infringed means. You equate "infringed" with "complete ban", when in fact, infringed means to "breach, encroach or tresspass" over upon a right. The framers knew that in order for the people to protect themselves, at any time, against a tyrannical government, or foreign invader, the people had a right to KEEP and BEAR arms that "shall not be infringed." Did you notice the word KEEP in the 2nd amendment too? Another thing you miss is that the right to keep and bear arms is necessary to compromise a well regulated militia. Not the other way around.

          I only brought up Feinstein to not only show the flawed position of her argument, but also because she is a person in a place of power in our government, who has the possibility of persuading legislation to be passed that many people see as being unconstitutional.

          I'm not talking about "gun control" as a whole, but merely addressing this article's discussion of assault rifle bans. As I said before, there are other ways to address this issue, but a ban on assault rifles is plainly unconstitutional.

        • John

          Brama, why are you pretending you have any idea of what you are talking about? What is your background in constitutional law?

          If you want to go with your literal reading of the 2a, you should be able to buy and use any arms you can "bear", no restrictions, no background checks, criminals and crazies buying guns by the truck loads. That is what your reading would give.

        • Brama

          John, first off, don't be condescending....neither to me, nor yourself. The Constitution was written for the common citizen to be able to refer to to defend their rights. How else would the common citizen be able to defend their rights otherwise? It doesn't take a course in Constitutional law for men to be able to defend their rights, nor to read a sentence and diagram it. That's just plain English.

          Second, there were no background checks, etc, at the time of the framing of the Constitution. Only when crime began to get more organized, did certain laws get passed. It was uncommon for a family or individuals in the days of the framing to not own a gun. Gun violence as we now see it was not. We had our share of outlaws, but nothing like what we see today. But the point I'm making is that the Constitution states that the freedom to own guns should not be infringed. As long as someone passes background checks, the amount of guns they buy is irrelevant. The type they buy is irrelevant. You cannot criminalize a purchase just because you don't like the type of weapon, or 'feel' that 2 is enough. The right to keep and bear arms held no exclusions for the common citizen.

          Remember the reason for the 2nd amendment John. It was to ensure that the people, when necessary to maintain a militia in order to defend against a tyrannical government or foreign invader, have the right to keep and bear arms.

        • John

          " How else would the common citizen be able to defend their rights otherwise? "

          By actually looking into the laws, what cases have been brought forth, what the rulings were, what the precedents are, etc. Not just by saying "Hrmm.. I can read, therefore I decide on what is constitutional or not."

          So you are for background checks and forbidding criminals and mentally unstable people from buying guns? That means you are for gun control and you are infringing on their rights. Can't have it both ways.

        • Brama

          The Constitution is the Preeminent law, John. We look to it first before anything. It is the foundation of our rights, not our last resort.

          "Hrmm.. I can read, therefore I decide on what is constitutional or not." That's how the argument was made to Feinstein, that's how arguments are made on the legislation floors. That's how 15 year old girls are able to eloquently and elaborately argue 2nd amendment rights better than most 50 years old in this country.

          "So you are for background checks and forbidding criminals and mentally unstable people from buying guns? That means you are for gun control and you are infringing on their rights. Can't have it both ways."

          Criminals forfeit those rights, John, when they commit certain acts. Just like they forfeit certain aspects of liberty by being in jail. But you don't criminalize the 2nd amendment pre-facto.

          And again, my argument is not regarding certain aspects of gun control, which I believe some are reasonable. My objection is towards gun laws that remove or restrict freedoms that are blatantly unconstitutional. As an example, assault rifles. The need of the people to be able to keep and bear arms is ingrained in the 2nd amendment with the purpose of maintain a free state. The second amendment provides that the people be able to protect themselves from an invader, either foreign or domestic, in order to maintain a free state. When assault rifles are banned, not only is the 2nd amendment infringed upon, but it removes the possibility of the people being able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government, or foreign invader. The Revolutionary War would have had immense difficulty being won if the government possessed firearms that the general population wouldn't be able to have access to. (I'm not saying that the military doesn't already so, but rather the argument is there). There is no need to further remove the citizen's right, or ability to protect themselves by banning something that is not criminal in nature. That's my argument.

          I'm not saying I'm completely against any form of gun control. But penalizing the law abiding citizens from their Constitutional right, is...well...unconstitutional.

        • abrayoungham

          "Actually, it's not a given. The 2a is not absolute, restrictions can apply."

          The 2nd Amendment is absolute. You are a brainwashed atheist. No logic involved or ability to observe, think critically, or apply reason.

        • John

          If it is absolute, then any child, criminal, and mentally unstable person could buy a gun.

        • Alupara

          Legal channels?? Like the South American drug cartels that smuggle drugs into the country along with the arms they smuggle to arm the street gangs to protect their turf?

        • John

          Yes, legal channels. Do you think criminals manufacture their own guns?

        • Alupara

          Smuggling is NOT a legal channel and some criminals can manufacture their own guns.

        • Guest


        • Guest


      • Randy Renu

        It's your time, but I would not spend it in a clusterf*** with John. Comment only to people who care about your opinion and solution.

        John was a phase 3 clinical test subject years ago for the Monsanto-DuPont collaboration in their efforts to come us with a new anal suppository. This new product, designed to replace the oral laxative, would effectively clean out the lower bowel by using small non-nuclear explosions while leaving the bowel smelling fresh as a daisy. Unfortunately, John failed to follow the instructions and placed the product in his left ear....anus and ear are the same in Johns mind as he relates to where his head is located most of the time.

        After placing the device in his ear and upon detonation, part of Johns left brain, the areas for logical, sequential, rational, analytical and objectivity were severely damaged and never returned to normal.

        As you can see from the attached picture, the damage has been done, but we all hope that with continued therapy, he will make a full partial recovery.

    • fliteking

      John asks another stupid question while the rest of us review in our minds how defenseless the Sandy Hook victims were when killed by a demented registered democrat . . . thanks to the restrictive gun laws of Conn.

    • Carl Stevenson

      It's tyranny that's designed to disarm people, either through future outright confiscation (which historically has ALWAYS followed "universal registration") or simply by making it so expensive and onerously inconvenient that people give up and "voluntarily" disarm.

      It doesn't make people safer, it only renders them defenseless against criminals, crazies, and their oppressive government.

      It has NEVER ended well.

      No matter what additional unconstitutional infringements of our gun rights are passed - bans, registration, and/or any/all other infringements of our rights, I will not comply. Millions more will not comply.

      DHS and other alphabet agencies have recently purchased over 1.8 BILLION rounds of hollow point ammo – enough to shoot every man, woman, and child in the country 5 times or more - enough for over 20 years of warfare here in the homeland at the intensity of the Iraq/Afghanistan conflict - ammo that’s illegal for military use under international law, and have just ordered more and an additional 7,000 FULLY AUTOMATIC "personal defense" weapons. They have also recently purchased almost 3,000 armored fighting vehicles for use on the streets of America, in addition to the many already obtained from DoD. How does anyone with the capability of rational thought escape the conclusion that our government is preparing for a war on its own citizens?

      Feinstein, Schumer, Obama, Holder, Bloomberg, Cuomo, and their whole gang are tyrant wannabes. To them, anyone who does, or might, oppose their control over every aspect of our lives, is “a criminal” because they said so.

      To quote a few of their heroes, with explanatory comments in ( ):

      “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” – Mao

      (They revere Mao and the way he ruthlessly grabbed power in China. The fact that he murdered about 100 million Chinese to do it is, to them, a “feature,” not a “bug.”)

      “If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves. … The only real power comes out of a long rifle. … Everyone imposes his own system as far as his army can reach. … We don’t let them have ideas. Why would we let them have guns? … The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic.” — Joseph Stalin

      “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty.” — Adolf Hitler

      (These psychopathic sociopaths in our government – and THEY ARE PRECISELY THAT, never make the mistake of doubting it – believe that they are anointed to be our rulers and that we are the equivalent of Hitler’s “subject races.” And we know what they did to "them.")

      Don’t tell me, “It can’t happen here in America.” To borrow a quote from Mike Vanderboegh,

      “Anyone who tells you that ‘It Can’t Happen Here’ is whistling past the graveyard of history. There is no ‘house rule’ that bars tyranny coming to America. History is replete with republics whose people grew complacent and descended into imperial butchery and chaos.”

      Hitler disarmed the Jews and others, then murdered millions

      Stalin disarmed the Russians, them murdered millions

      Mao disarmed the Chinese peasants, then murdered nearly 100 million.

      The Turks disarmed the Armenians, then murdered 1.5-2 million.

      Pol Pot disarmed the Cambodians and murdered millions.

      Rwanda disarmed its ethnic groups, then murdered millions.

      The list goes on … about 262 MILLION people murdered BY THEIR OWN GOVERNMENTS in the 20th century – AFTER they allowed those governments to disarm them. See:

      They ALL thought “It can’t happen here” – until they were disarmed and it started, then it was too late. Don’t make the same mistake. Don’t EVER let your government disarm you.

      The Founders knew that government, if not constrained at every step, will continue to accumulate power and control until it becomes tyranny. That’s why they feared standing armies and insisted that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

      “A tyrannical rule cannot in any reasonable construction be accounted lawful, and therefore the disturbance of such a government cannot be esteemed seditious, much less traitorous.” – Thomas Aquinas

      When Injustice becomes Law, Resistance becomes Duty – Thomas Jefferson

      Take the pledge:

    • Remington 870

      John...Connecticut is full of rich people and after they have to give up their guns, the criminals are going to have a wonderful time committing their crimes. A disarmed public is a vulnerable public.

      • John

        Can you show me any of the new CT laws that involve anyone giving up their guns?

        • Remington 870

          John...the law is going to make it very hard for any law abiding person who will be required to enter a bureaucratic process designed to slowly and methodically make it impossible to own a gun and buy ammunition. Disarming via bureaucracy.

        • John

          Filling out paperwork is hard?

        • Remington 870

          Filling out paperwork is not hard, but if such paperwork is designed to bureaucratically
          cherry pick who gets approved verses who doesn't, the paperwork process can be categorized as discriminatory. I bet you don't own a gun. If you do own a gun, then you are one of the few armed libs out there.

        • John

          What cherry picking are you referencing?

        • Remington 870

 libs ask too many questions. You know what cherry picking I am referring to.

        • John

          If you didn't make stuff up then I wouldn't have to ask so many questions

        • Alupara

          It's not "giving up their guns"; that is, the guns they have now. It forces them to register the guns they have and then giving up their "rights" to their guns in the future.

        • John

          Yea? You can predict the future? Fascinating.

          At least you admit no one is being disarmed or anyone is trying to take anyone's guns. That is miles ahead of most of the other right wingers who post here.

        • Alupara

          That was childish. That all you got?

        • John

          What was childish? The fact that you are basing gun confiscations on future events that haven't happened? Do you usually cite evidence based on what you think the future will bring?

        • Alupara

          Did I say "confiscation"? I said "Rights". You need to get your "facts" straight.

    • Don39

      How are you not a fool? In deference to johns that are of the more intelligent variety you should add a modifier to your common name!

  • Brama

    What part of "shall not be infringed" does nobody understand when it comes to the 2nd amendment?

    • 7papa7

      When you are dealing with agenda driven morons this is what you get. Their agenda has precedence over the Constitution and they will spin what they do until you get dizzy and puke. I hope that they have some pro Constitution folks there that will run their anti American butts into court and if they lose appeal until you reach SCOTUS.

  • Graywolf12

    If you are a Lib and decide to move to Texas leave your liberal/progressive votes where they are now. We do not need you to move here, vote for liberals, and change our great state into another blue hell hole of taxes, gun control, and people control.

  • Brama

    Fingerprinting is not the same as making certain guns illegal. Owning an assault weapon is not the same as owning the ebola virus. Just because people die from incidental needle punctures doesn't mean we ban needles. Function and intent are two different things. Guns don't magically kill people like a piece of uranium. Needles don't stick people on their own. Same thing with guns. You don't ban the guns just because certain individuals use them inappropriately. Same reason we don't ban cars just because some people speed and cause accidents in them.

    • Doodlebug

      Why is this such a hard concept for people to understand? The criminals of every nature, and the mentally ill will still have the guns or whatever other method they choose if they desire to kill. It is you and I, the honest, law abiding citizens, who will be sitting ducks for them to shoot at. It's control this administration wants and this administration seems to get whatever they want. God help us all!

    • Don39

      I see that at least two liberal idiots could not grasp what you were saying. Don't worry it is just part of the liberal psychopathology! You did not specifically say that nothing will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and that Conn.'s criminal population is rising as we speak as is the flow of illegal weapons.! Wonder when the AP will decide that the term 'Illegal" weapons is no longer politically correct?

      • Brama

        Yeah, Don... and the conversation continued big time with me and John further down.

  • NewCreationDave
  • Randy Renu

    Q: What are the 2 choices you have when you are in Connecticut?
    A: Bowl or get Bored!

    Q: Whats the most challenging thing to do in Connecticut?

    A: The New York Times crossword puzzle.

    Q. What's the difference between a Western Connecticut State University sorority sister and a scarecrow?

    A. One lives in a field and is stuffed with hay. The other frightens birds and small animals.

    Q: Why do UConn Huskies keep their diplomas on their dashboards?

    A: So they can park in handicap spaces.

    Q: What do you call a good looking girl on the University of Connecticut campus?

    A: A visitor.

    Q: Why did Forrest Gump choose 'Bama over UConn?
    A: He wanted an academic challenge!

    Q: Did you hear about the power outage at the Connecticut State University library?
    A: Thirty students were stuck on the escalator for three hours.

    Q: What should you do if you find three University Of Connecticut football fans buried up to their neck in cement?
    A: Get more cement.

    • Don39

      Yeah, thanks for the lighter moment!

  • festmatt5440

    Leave it to the ' ; " edd, - yuu, mak ,kate , ted '; folks ; who live up there ' , in Conn. ; where all the smart people live ; to make those ; ' inn ',tell, ee ',gunt " ; de ' sizz,yuns ".

  • Tom54

    So another law that the Criminals can ignore. The only people that will get charged with anything will be the law abiding citizens. Now watch the B&E's soar as the criminals start breaking into every place that sells or has ammunition because they will not be able to buy any. Since they do not obey any laws anyway what is another law to break. Trouble is they will probably kill a few home witnesses who happen to be home when they break in to steal the ammo. But they would just be another reason to pass a few more laws for the criminals to break.

  • Whisper Atnight

    FOLKS, I am afraid that a lot of people do not realize the dangers that will be upon the people of the Earth due to the UN passing of international gun control. This treaty eliminates the possibility of one country coming to the rescue of another should there arises the need to arm a people against genocide. Think about it.

  • Woobie King

    There IS a difference between Yankees and Americans.

  • Made_in_the_USA

    Thank God I already live in Texas! I hope those blue people don't start moving here and mess up our great Lone Star State. Maybe now Colt will move to Dallas and open shop here. I don't think Connecticut needs them anymore.

    • Don39

      Now if you Texans can just lead the way in getting liberals and the fed out of control of your schools!

  • Taskmasterendgame

    Rinos compromise with state Democrats (Progressive Communist)
    Rinos and Democratic Communist must Go Now !

  • Don39

    Remember 'prohibition'? Remember the cigarette tax wars and black market? A pox on you Connecticut and on your citizens if they let this Unconstitutional action stand. on the other hand if you have the guts to fight, you have a nation of the PEOPLE behind you and willing to help you fight for your rights, your Constitutionally guaranteed rights, all of your rights!

  • Don39

    Let us not forget that arms are the right of the people first and foremost as a defense against a tyrannical government! Conn. you really need to remember that! The first step in confiscating weapons is always the registration of them to make it easier for the tyrant to find them. On the other hand when the government has them it is easier and cheaper for the oppressed to know where to find them when the time is right for the revolution!

    • Brama

      And I think that certain people who are so anti-gun think that every gun owner is anti-government or radical. The problem for the modern progressive is that they never think that there will be a time in the future when a revolution may actually be necessary... something they write off as only for radicals and crazies... until things like Nazi Germany happens, and then they say, "Oh crap. It really can happen." The 2nd amendment is not for aggression, but for protection in times of invasion or oppression, whether by individuals or by governments. The problems is that liberals never think that oppression can ever happen. They are too busy handing over their rights to actually admit that they are in fact being taken away.

  • ECDucy

    TO WE THE PEOPLE OF CONN. - WAKE UP!!! EITHER ORGANIZE OR DIE!!! Contact Chief Mark Kessler, Phone: (570) 874-4790, E-mail: Info@ChiefKessler.Com or go to the website: http://WWW.ChiefKessler.Com. Chief Kessler started the Constitutional Security Force, Inc. with the intent of ensuring that NO ONE EVER WILL DISARM AMERICA & to ensure that COMMUNISM IS STOPPED FROM TAKING OVER AMERICA. There are over 35 state chapters nationwide. There is a chapter in Conn. Other New England Chapters are - Ma., R.I., N.H., Maine, N.Y. You must be 18 years of age or older to join & you must pass an extensive Criminal Background Check. WE THE PEOPLE OF THE CSF, INC. are recruiting ALL Patriotic Americans, including ALL active & retired Military & ALL active & retired Law Enforcement personnel who honor their oath to protect the US Constitution, to protect our great Republic of America & to defend America against ALL enemies, both foreign & domestic. If you are a Patriotic concerned American who is sick & tired of a tyrannical, oppressive, over reaching, Communist Government trampling on your GOD given rights & are concerned that the Government will confiscate your weapons the CSF, Inc. wants you. The CSF, Inc. will provide training & certification in the following- Firearms certification, Firearms Safety, Tactical Firearms Training, Sniper Training, Recon, Urban Combat, Basic & Advanced Survival Training, Hand-to-Hand Combat, Combat Medical First Aid, Knife Fighting, Search & Rescue, other Self Defense Tactics, Community Out Reach, Community Disaster Relief & Support & much more.