67°
NEWTOWN, Conn. — Guns that can fire more than 10 rounds without being reloaded and clips that can hold more than 10 rounds would be banned under recommendations by a committee formed to reduce gun violence following the Dec. 14 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown.
Do you agree with the Sandy Hook Commission's recommendations?
View ResultsDo you agree with the Sandy Hook Commission's recommendations?
-
Yes. Ban assault weapons, high-capacity clips and require background checks.
12% -
Partially. Require background checks, but don't ban assault weapons or high-capacity clips.
8% -
Partially. Ban assault weapons and high-capacity clips but don't require background checks.
0% -
No. This infringes on my Second Amendment rights.
80%
The Sandy Hook Advisory Commission delivered its interim report to Gov. Dannel Malloy on Monday (click on the attachment of the bottom of this story to read the full report).
The commission also recommended mandatory background checks with all firearms sales — including at gun shows — and regular renewal of firearms permits.
"The commission understands that, in a spree killing, a life could be lost every few seconds," the report says. "The Commission takes seriously the rights afforded under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, but balances those rights against the language of the Preamble to the Constitution, which includes assurances of 'domestic tranquility' and the obligation to 'promote the general welfare.'"
As for school safety, the commission recommended that all public school classrooms have doors that can be locked from the inside and that all exterior doors "be equipped with hardware capable of implementing a full perimeter lockdown."
On receiving the report, Malloy said in a news release: "I have proposed and the General Assembly is considering a set of strong, common sense measures that includes universal background checks, stricter firearm storage requirements, restrictions on the size of magazines, and a total ban on the sale or purchase of many dangerous weapons, including the weapon used in the Sandy Hook massacre."
Attached: (sandy_hook_advisory_commission_interim_report.pdf)
Comments (148)
I find that most of the pro gun group are cowards that need a gun to make them feel important they are actually terrified of their own shadow
I find that most of the anti gun group are cowards that need to disarm others to make them feel important they are actually terrified of their own shadow
Yes you're right we should do something about the poster wise.guys.7505
So far all this person has done is disparage, insult and copy paste.
While I've offered an adult discussion what has he given us?
Let's see how long it takes for this person to copy my profile pic...
Thats Timmy, he is our new Troll. Takes every ones user name when mad
Ponytail Steve
You are in love with Timmy.
You post about him all day everyday.
actually I think the group was referring to you but nice try
actually I think the group was referring to you but nice try
Group?...of 2, read my posts
Basic guidelines:
Don't insult
No Spam
Keep it relevant to the topic
Moderators do what needs to be done
Double tap
Can someone please do something about
wise.guy.7505
and the spam
YOU are the spammer, the liar, and a thief and the DUMBEST troll we have ever seen online.
Copy more profiles today, Niiktard!
Ponytail Steve
You seems to have some major mental issues.
Why is it you are more concerned with stalking other posters instead of the topic of the article.
You have your posts removed daily but still insists on
posting the same garbage
I seems? Yes Timmy I sure doooos
If you spent as much time working as you did spamming with different user names, you may actually be successful at something.
But alas, you are a prime example of an Obama supporting welfare collector.
Why work, when you can troll on the internet all day?
Now which user name will you reply with???
Ponytail
Here you have made yet another post were you stalking another man.
You seem to be obsessed with this Timmy.
Tell us why is this coward
You would think that a sportsmen’s club would be interested in gun safety and saving the lives of children.That would be true if the NRA were a sportsmen’s association. But they are not.They are the thug ugly lobbying group for the manufacturers of paramilitary weapons. The NRA has been terrorizing our citizens by promoting such weapons and fighting tooth and nail (to quote Aqua Buddha) to oppose anything that threatens their burgeoning $12 billion industry, to which they’re tied with a monetary umbilical cord.Yesterday we saw a new ad that NRA aired as a pre-emptive strike on President Obama’s proposed restrictions on assault weapons and related munitions and background check loopholes. Their video clip [ http://youtu.be/2bKw7ZsQgtc ] singles out the two daughters of our president.
This vile, tasteless use of an “off limits” subject, shows how low the NRA will go to protect the blood-stained profits of the large gun manufacturers, and the million dollar salary of NRA’s point man, Wayne LaPierre.
It’s time to teach the bullies a lesson. It’s time to regulate the NRA militia.
I find it appaling that the President, congress members and the media paraded the families of the Sandy Hook tragedy in order to push their agenda.
Even Malloy said as much as Rham Emanuel "we can't let a tragedy go to waste...digusting!
The only agenda congress and the president have is to save lives. It figures you would find that appalling
We are not the Militia!
Lost in the gun rights debate, much to the detriment of American freedom, is the fact that the Second Amendment is in fact an "AMENDMENT". No "Articles in Amendment" to the Constitution, more commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights, stand alone and each can only be properly understood with reference to what it is that each Article in Amendment amended in the body of the original Constitution. It should not be new knowledge to any American the Constitution was first submitted to Congress on September 17, 1787 WITHOUT ANY AMENDMENTS. After much debate, it was determined that the States would not adopt the Constitution as originally submitted until "further declamatory and restrictive clauses should be added" "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its (the Constitutions) powers". (This quote is from the Preamble to the Amendments, which was adopted along with the Amendments but is mysteriously missing from nearly all modern copies.) The first ten Amendments were not ratified and added to the Constitution until December 15, 1791.
In this Light:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." What provisions of the original Constitution is it that the Second Amendment is designed to "amended"?
THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS AMENDING THE PROVISIONS IN THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION APPLYING TO THE "MILITIA". The States were not satisfied with the powers granted to the "militia" as defined in the original Constitution and required an amendment to "prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers. "(Again quoting from the Preamble to the Amendments.)
What was it about the original Constitutional provisions concerning the "Militia" that was so offensive to the States?
First understand that the word "militia" was used with more than one meaning at the time of the penning of the Constitution. One popular definition used then was one often quoted today, that the "Militia" was every able bodied man owning a gun. As true as this definition is, it only confuses the meaning of the word "militia" as used in the original Constitution that required the Second Amendment to correct. The only definition of "Militia" that had any meaning to the States demanding Amendments is the definition used in the original Constitution. What offended the States then should offend "People" today:
"Militia" in the original Constitution as amended by the Second Amendment is first found in Article 1, Section 8, clause 15, where Congress is granted the power:
"To provide for the calling forth the MILITIA to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel Invasions." Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 further empowers Congress:
"To provide for the organizing, arming, and disciplining, the MILITIA, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" Any "patriot" out there still want to be called a member of the "MILITIA" as defined by the original Constitution?
Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 empowers: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the MILITIA of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;" The only way the States would accept the "MILITIA" as defined in the original Constitution was that the Federal "MILITIA" be "WELL REGULATED". The States realized that "THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE" required that the "MILITIA" as originally created in the Constitution be "WELL REGULATED" by a "restrictive clause." How did the States decide to insure that the Constitutional "MILITIA" be "WELL REGULATED"? By demanding that "restrictive clause two" better know as the "Second Amendment" be added to the original Constitution providing:
"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." The States knew that "PEOPLE" with "ARMS" would "WELL REGULATE" the Federal "MILITIA"!
Now read for the first time with the full brightness of the Light of truth:
"A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
For those still overcome by propaganda: The Second Amendment declares by implication that if the "MILITIA" is not "WELL REGULATED" by "PEOPLE" keeping and bearing arms,the "MILITIA" becomes a threat to the "SECURITY OF A FREE STATE."
The "MILITIA" has no "RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS" in the Second Amendment,rather it is only "THE RIGHT OF THE ""PEOPLE"" TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS (that) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
It doesn't get any simpler than that.
The 2nd Amendment states it clearly.
For those that doubt the intentions of the NRA, may I suggest you research when and why the association was founded
The media blasted Lapierre for suggesting the use of armed School Resource Officers, yet many schools are now employing them...go figure huh?
In the end everyone will form their own opinions and rightfully so.
There's good reason the Founding Fathers put forth the 2A, those reasons are evident today as our nation wrestles with gun control.
All of these proposed laws will eventually be heard by the SCOTUS ...lets hope they err on the side of Liberty and the People and not support a police state as tyrants would choose.
Let's not let NRA's LaPierre misdirect us with ignorance, lies about media
What an ignorant, dishonest and pathetic response to Sandy Hook today from the National Rifle Association.
As a media critic, I will limit myself to the disingenuous attack on the media from Wayne LaPierre, chief executive of the organization. Of course, it's a shameless attempt to avoid accepting any responsibility by his organization.
Five Reasons Why the NRA Must Be Stopped
1. NRA leaders' immoral interpretation of the Second Amendment presents a serious public health risk.
2. The NRA does not represent the views of most NRA members and gun owners.
3. The NRA represents gun makers, not gun owners.
4. The NRA lies to the public and its members.
5. The NRA uses its power to silence responsible politicians and quash constructive efforts to reduce gun violence.
The NRA's Lie About Guns, the Constitution, and History
At bottom, the National Rifle Association is a marketing shop. They sell guns to America by claiming they stand between us and a government plotting to take away our rights and establish tyranny. In the old days they did their job by emphasizing hunting and gun safety, but I guess that didn't sell enough units for their constituency--gun manufacturers
They've been doing this since Reagan was elected by insisting that only the second and third phrases of the Second Amendment--"...the right of the people to bear arms, shall not be infringed."--mean anything.
If somebody brings up the first phrase--" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." they insist the militia meant the people at large, and that the idea was to create a counterweight to the central government, so it wouldn't dare infringe on the people's rights.
I'm sorry to have to burst their bubble--well, not really--but the legislative history following the Second Amendment's passage very clearly supports the opposite of what they say. In 1789, the militia was intended to substitute for a standing Army, and to defend the government from insurrection.
Congress passed two Militia Acts in 1792. The first created state militias, each under control of that state's governor, specifically created to resist invasion, and suppress insurrection . The second directed all able-bodied white men between the ages of 18 and 45 to belong to their state militia, own a gun and related equipment for that purpose, and report for duty twice a year. The law even laid out how many bullets each militia member had to bring with him--25 if he owned a musket, 20 if he owned a rifle. After the Civil War the Acts were modified to allow black militia members to belong. In 1903, the state militias were merged with the National Guard.
You might look up the 1903 Dick Act (odd name I know)
It specifically states that the citizens should be AT LEAST AS WELL ARMED AS THE MILITIA!
LOOK IT UP!
Here’s how the NRA lies about the Second Amendment
The notion that the Second Amendment is about allowing the citizenry to mount an insurrection against the government is exactly backwards. Rather, it’s about conscripting the citizenry to suppress insurrection.
Andrew Reinbach EXPLAINS:
If somebody brings up the first phrase–” A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…” they [the National Rifle Association, et al] insist the militia meant the people at large, and that the idea was to create a counterweight to the central government, so it wouldn’t dare infringe on the people’s rights.
I’m sorry to have to burst their bubble–well, not really–but the legislative history following the Second Amendment’s passage very clearly supports the opposite of what they say. In 1789, the militia was intended to substitute for a standing Army, and to defend the government from insurrection.
Congress passed two Militia Acts in 1792. The first created state militias, each under control of that state’s governor, specifically created to resist invasion, and suppress insurrection. The second directed all able-bodied white men between the ages of 18 and 45 to belong to their state militia, own a gun and related equipment for that purpose, and report for duty twice a year. The law even laid out how many bullets each militia member had to bring with him–25 if he owned a musket, 20 if he owned a rifle. After the Civil War the Acts were modified to allow black militia members to belong. In 1903, the state militias were merged with the National Guard.
Aside from frontier fights with the Indian Nations, the militia was used only twice between 1792 and 1814: Once against the Whiskey Rebellion in western Pa. (led in person by George Washington); and then at Bladensburg, Md., to defend Washington DC against the British (the militia ran at the first volley and the day has been called the Bladensburg Races ever since). There was one use of a militia under the Articles of Confederation; in 1787, Shay’s Rebellion in western Massachusetts was put down by a private militia after Shay’s men attacked the Springfield armory.
There is no record of any legally-constituted militia “defending the people against a tyrannical government” under the Constitution–acts it would construe as treason, under Article 3, Section 3 (“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”) The only way to claim otherwise is to use the Civil War as an example. Even then, using state armies that way fit the Constitution’s definition of treason; it was simply expedient after the war to let the matter go.
Given that, anyone can see that the militia under the Constitution was an instrument of the state from the first, and never meant to safeguard the people from the state. What the NRA is doing is trying to confuse colonial militias–when there was no United States–with militias under the Constitution.
The record likewise makes clear that personal gun ownership was protected by the Second Amendment as a way to arm the militia. Of course, lots of people owned muskets or rifles then anyway. And in general, most people didn’t care. But a glance at the historical and legislative record explains why the Second Amendment has three clauses in one sentence and can’t be understood without considering all of it–screams from the right notwithstanding.
The destruction of America, death by a thousand cuts.
Every day Americans are denied their basic rights, not by a frontal onslaught but by chipping away, a little here, a little there. Soon our nation is but a ghost if itself.
I fear for our childrens future.
Preserve Liberty, their future lies in our hands.
Same here. I have tried to stop the updates multiple times with no success. I am going to contact the person from Daily Voice on the header, Mr. Branch, and see what I can do.
Sad really,
Conn. Bill SB 1076 was written in 2009 while our legislators patiently waited for a tragedy so that they could introduce it while emotions are raw.
I hate to say it but, they're standing on the graves of our children to promote their agenda...disgusting
Is it coincidence that most mass murders occur in "Gun Free Zones"?
You decide.
Liberty.
Who would deny you of it?
A month after Newtown, here comes a new shooting app—“NRA: Practice Range.” That’s right, it’s from those same tone-deaf folks who blamed video games for all of society’s gun-related ills. Originally targeted for ages 4 and up, it has now been rebranded for ages 12 and up.
NRA Targeted Obama's Children in Propaganda Ad
On Tuesday, the NRA released a video mocking President Obama for arguing against more guns in schools - saying that it's convenient that he has his daughters under armed guard protection while trying to make everyone else's children go to school in Gun Free Zones. The ad contains the standard gloom-and-doom grays and black tones, apples and oranges comparisons and and ominous bass-toned voice over telling gun owners to stand up for their children since Obama obviously isn't. The only problem with this video? It's not just a poorly constructed argument - it's a personal attack on the President's family as well as bad way to win favor with anyone even slightly moderate. In short, it's just another NRA propaganda piece.
In making the argument against Obama (calling him an "elitist hypocrite"), the NRA attempts to equate Secret Service protection with the protection of every other U.S. citizen child. Any rational person should understand that the President and his family have to live with this protection - it's a matter of national security. Even former presidents retain Secret Service protection after they leave office. This faulty comparison doesn't just fail at the national security angle, either.
In releasing the video, the NRA tipped its hand in how it means to tackle the gun debate going forward. Want to discuss gun control? What about the potentially dead children?! What are we going to do when they don't have guns to protect themselves? By framing the debate around children, the NRA (if you'll pardon the pun) is shooting themselves in the foot. And I'm not the alone in this thought. On MSNBC’s Morning Joe Wednesday morning, Obama advisor Robert Gibbs offered a strong rebuke of the ad, saying "I mean, it is disgusting on many levels. It’s also just stupid. This reminds me of an ad that somebody made about 2:00 in the morning after one too many drinks, and no one stopped it in the morning." Mika Brzezinksi agreed, saying "Quite frankly after seeing that, I think some of the people who run that thing are sick. I really do. I think they are sick in the head."
Seeing how there is no more adult discussion and there are only 1or2 anti Liberty posters left it's time to move on to greener pastures.
The pro Liberty Americans have much work to do making people aware of their Unalienable Rights, fight the good fight, use truth knowledge and facts.
Those that can't support their arguments soon resort to juvenile tactics revealing themselves for what they are. Meanwhile those on the fence don't get into the frey, they become enlightened and form their opponions on the side of Liberty.
According to the children here I just made some big coin posting this...if only...
How can you tell the fearmongering on the GOP and its leash holder, the NRA, is working on those of feeble mind?
Via Raw Story:
A small town in Georgia has proposed an ordinance that would require “the head of household” in every home to own a gun and ammunition.
Town leaders in Nelson on Tuesday told WSB-TV that they had drafted the ordinance because they only have one police officer on duty for eight hours a day. And they worry that sheriff deputies cannot provide enough protection during the 16 hours each night that no officer is patrolling.
“When he’s not here we rely on county sheriffs–however it takes a while for them to get here,” Nelson City Councilman Duane Cronic, who drafted the proposal, explained.
Cronic’s ordinance reads: “In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition.”
So instead of a tiny raise in taxes to pay for a full time police department, everyone needs to arm themselves from the roving bands of (black) marauders that will lay siege to the town?
Not everyone is on board with living in terror, though:
But Nelson resident Lamar Kellett called the idea “big government at its worst.”
“Why have an ordinance if you’re not going to enforce it? What’s the point?” Kellett asked. “They just want publicity to say Nelson is a town full of weapons.”
“This is big government at its worst: Government mandating what a free individual can and will have in his home.”
It’s actually worse than that. What Cronic is saying is that not only is the government incapable of protecting you, it won’t take any steps to remedy that situation. It’s the ultimate in the “you’re on your own” society.
It’s the republican wet dream.
NRA Propaganda Of Fear
The NRA message used to be: Keep your freedom from its taking by a tyrannical government! All “real” patriots need to own a gun!
Now it's all about protecting ourselves from vicious drug cartels in Mexico that are imposing their internal wars on America. Of course, the NRA also blames President Obama for allowing Americans to be terrorized and slaughtered by Mexican drug gangsters! They say Obama is turning a blind eye to the “Mexican Terror Problem”.
What a lie! Also, what an outrageous rationale for gun ownership. To hear the NRA, it's like we have no law enforcement operations on the border at all. The NRA shouts--Americans can't trust President Obama to protect us. Americans need to take responsible for their own security! Own more powerful and destructive guns!
What deceit and fear mongering!
Guns don't protect our freedom. They suppress free speech rights and intimidate those that speak up for individual rights, freedom, reason, and tolerance. An armed society is a diminished democratic society.
Americans will never come to understand that, if the NRA has its way. The NRA does not represent America's gun owners! The NRA represents gun manufacturers and commercial firearm distribution channels...period!
SB 1076
Calls for Registration of all firearms, failure to renew registration (at $140 per firearm) is a Class D Felony resulting in the CONFISCATION of firearms.
Read the text of the bill.
The only "Deadly Propaganda" is belief in gun control laws.
We all know Criminals don't abide by the law hence the name "criminal"
The Naked Communist, published in 58....gun control fits the agenda....
BTW I earn $100.00 per word...not a bad gig eh?
GUN VIOLENCE
NRA’s propaganda is deadly
Two of the most successful propaganda campaigns among many in my lifetime have been run by Josef Goebbels and by the National Rifle Association.
Goebbels was the Nazi propaganda minister from 1933 to 1945 who orchestrated a program that convinced millions of Germans that they were racially superior to everyone else, resulting in World War II and the Holocaust.
The NRA campaign has more mundane goals but nevertheless has been able to convince millions of Americans that legislation aimed at control of who buys guns and the types of weapons sold will mean they will have to surrender every gun they own.
No responsible person or organization advocates such a ban on guns in this country.
Nazi propaganda was motivated by racial hatred, humiliation from defeat in World War I and the insane dreams of Adolf Hitler.
The motivation of the NRA is simply to help their sponsor, the firearms industry, stay profitable.
Yet the two programs do share one outcome: They make it easier for people to get killed. Think about it.
Alan Donaldson, Amelia Island
I think for myself,others including the NRA dont tell me how to think,Everyone is entitled to their own opinion,but the name calling gets old! I choose to own firearms not because someone told me too,It was my choice,just like i dont get my news from one place,I research and form my own opinions.Seems like on this site if your pro gun you must be working for the NRA, Well then who do all of you anti-gun people work for? Why wont the police in CT release the toxology reports on the school shooter? Maybe they dont want it out there because it wont help them further the cause of taking away our rights.2A is a right,if you take that one away what is next?The law abiding people with firearms shouldnt have their rights taken away because a few people choose to break the law! Ive had it with the childish name calling on here and the ones that wont even research and find out for themselves what kind of weapon was used to begin with.I guess its easier to just call names and avoid any kind of real debate on what could be done to prevent the newtown tragedy from happening again.
GUN VIOLENCE
NRA’s propaganda is deadly
Two of the most successful propaganda campaigns among many in my lifetime have been run by Josef Goebbels and by the National Rifle Association.
Goebbels was the Nazi propaganda minister from 1933 to 1945 who orchestrated a program that convinced millions of Germans that they were racially superior to everyone else, resulting in World War II and the Holocaust.
The NRA campaign has more mundane goals but nevertheless has been able to convince millions of Americans that legislation aimed at control of who buys guns and the types of weapons sold will mean they will have to surrender every gun they own.
No responsible person or organization advocates such a ban on guns in this country.
Nazi propaganda was motivated by racial hatred, humiliation from defeat in World War I and the insane dreams of Adolf Hitler.
The motivation of the NRA is simply to help their sponsor, the firearms industry, stay profitable.
Yet the two programs do share one outcome: They make it easier for people to get killed. Think about it.
Alan Donaldson, Amelia Island
Oh, just thought I'd let you know:
If anyone has "blood on their hands" its those that instituted Gun Free Zones.
Interesting news: C.S.P. refuse to release toxicology reports of the insane individual responsible for this tragedy.
Could it be that most all the politicians receive PAC money from the likes of Pfizer and other Pharmaceutical companies?
This is the one area that needs scrutinization most, yet our legislators won't tackle the issue.
Good night children, may the moderators block your IP's...
I would hope that your Ip would be the one blocked wise guy as you are the one posting the pad propaganda of the NRA. I know you will deny this but we all know that is the case.
While the juvenile comments continue... it appears Malloys dreams of Liability insurance for gun owners is a non starter as the insurance companies will not support it and consider it unworkable.
Another victory for Liberty!
BTW, definitely not a fan of Rep. or Dem.
So from the anti self defense comments we have the typical name calling and insults along with the Alinsky tactics of personalization & demonization yet no coherent arguments for gun control.
While some may think that, since some Police are in favor of gun control then their point of view is "right" but unfortunately you couldn't be more wrong.
We Americans all share the same rights, most specifically the defense of our right to life.
I'm sure we can agree with this.
While police are employed to enforce the law they have no duty to defend YOUR life.
The SCOTUS has ruled this as have many of the lower courts.
Our rights to defense of life are enumerated in the Bill of Rights, specifically the 2nd Amendment.
The Bill of Rights was enumerated accordingly in the priorities of the Founding Fathers, they knew the importance of keeping the power of government in the hands of the people, not in the hands of militia, politicians or tyrants.
We have the right to self defense, to be armed sufficiently equal to police and government angents, simply because someone may have an irrational fear of firearms gives you no right to infringe upon the rights of others.
If you can refute the basic arguments I've made in regards to gun control then, by all means do so but, if all you can do is disparage and insult then the moderators may delete your posts.
If the 2nd Amendment isn't clear enough for you go back a few posts, I think I described it best I could.
It's the most simple amendment and the wording means just what it says.
This might be the first time i have liked something Harry Reid has done,Good luck trying to get him impeached,he wins election time after time here because he has all the union support, Overall in Nevada we are happy with the gun laws we have in place,And im sure he had plenty of calls and emails against gun control.He also knows there was no way he was going to get the votes in the senate for an assault ban.Never vote for the guy but did send him an email this morning thanking him for not bringing this up for a vote!
Breaking news: Senator Reid will not bring assault weapons ban to vote.
It's over, folks. AR-15's are here to stay. Expect the prices to come down, and I'll be buying 2 more of those "evil weapons". God bless America.
he should be impeached
The comments of the gun fanatics reflect their ignorance. It's too bad they don't acknowledge that they are on the opposite of law enforcement based on their positions with respect to a ban on semi-automatic assault weapons; magazine sizes; universal background checks; taggants; cop killer bullets, etc. The gun fanatics would seem to favor harm done to members of our police departments. The gun fanatics also seem to have no problem with the fact that 20 eight year old children had their faces blown apart by semi-automatic assault weapons. The fanatics are very disturbed people.
This is what was in that link to nbc news,along with a video.
Pete Williams, who is NBC’s chief Justice correspondent, reported the following in the video posted above:
This continues to be a very complex investigation and there is a lot of contradictory information out there, but we have some new information this morning (one month ago) from a couple of federal officials and state officials.
They say now that there were actually four handguns inside the school, not just two as we were initially told. Four handguns and apparently only handguns that were taken into the school.
We knew that Adam Lanza, the man said to be the gunman here, also had an ‘assault-style’ AR-15 -style rifle that he had had taken to the school, it was in the car he drove there, his mother’s car, but we have been told by several officials that he had left that in the car.
I have linked below what the state police report are the firearms recovered from the scene.
http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?Q=517284&A=4226
NRA is not paying me a dime and I am a Norwalk resident.If you dont want to own a firearm that is your business but stay out of mine.
..and what is with all the caps learn how to type.
The only group i belong to is One Million Moms Against Gun Control. We have chapters in every state.You should check it out sometime,we post links to news articles,including the one i posted earlier from nbc,we attend state hearings and are all very involved in our communities.And we dont get nasty and call names just because someone has a different opinion than we do.Last i heard we still have freedom of speech here in America!