[QUOTE=Giantone;1066203][URL="http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=2A8_o8gb8kHc9M&tbnid=RNydFzuLvjpdeM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjobsanger.blogspot.com%2F2013%2F08%2Fmassive-gun-owner-database.html&ei=cXw5U7rOKq7nsATk3ICgAg&psig=AFQjCNHMm2hWzpZY2qu3p-DrH71aISwHDA&ust=1396362736514783"][IMG]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RbVEg8VLnjk/UhZ08EClNII/AAAAAAAA4BQ/fHeajwFcv-8/s1600/gun+data+base.png[/IMG][/URL][/QUOTE]

And how will the NRA go about using that database to confiscate weapons?

Every company has a database they use for marketing. If you can't differentiate between what the State and Federal Government wants to do and what the NRA wants to do then that speaks volumes regarding your lack of understanding of the situation.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=Giantone;1066157]Tell me again how more gun safety won't save lives and how more gun safety takes away from the 2nd amendment[/quote]Thank you for coming to your senses and agreeing with people like the NRA.
[IMG]http://eddieeagle.nra.org/images/eddie/k8w6732.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://ironsightdefense.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/NRA-Logo.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://cmsimg.detnews.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=C3&Date=20120930&Category=METRO02&ArtNo=209300313&Ref=AR&MaxW=640&Border=0&NRA-role-training-gun-owners-under-scrutiny-Oakland-County[/IMG]

Instead of being one of those gun-grabbing nuts like this clown.
[IMG]http://media.salon.com/2012/12/large-580x342.png[/IMG]

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=Giantone;1066200]Only some one who lacks understanding would think there is a flaw in pointing out Newtown as a reason for more gun safety.[/quote]
ok. See if you can follow this, it will be difficult to get past your inate bias, but try:

Fact: Connecticut has the 2nd toughest gun laws. (source - your post)
Fact: Connecticut is 6th in lowest gun death rate. (source - your post)
Fact: Sandy Hook Elementary, is in Newtown, which is in Connecticut(World map)
Fact: The gun used was a registered and legally obtained and kept weapon(all substantiated reports)
FACT: THE MURDERER BROKE THE LAW TO OBTAIN THE GUN (and by extrapolation, would have broken any law written to obtain the gun)

some more interesting information:
here is a link to the [url=http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/]25 Deadliest Mass Shootings in U.S. History Fast Facts - CNN.com[/url].

and the top 5 toughest gun law states as rated by BradyCampaign.org with their number of shootings, and number of people killed in each:
California 3-8,13,21
Conn 2-27,8
NJ 0-0
Md 1-12
NY 1-13

and the bottom 5, or weakest gun law states as rated by BradyCampaign.org, again with number of shootings and number of people killed in each:
Utah 0-0
Arizona 0-0
Alaska 1-8
Okla 1-14
NDakota 0-0

Texas had 3(13,18,23) and ranked 39th.
Colorado and VA both had 2, ranked 15th, and 19th respectively.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=HailGreen28;1066236]Thank you for coming to your senses and agreeing with people like the NRA.
[/quote]


I see you can't answer the question .




[URL="https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=F_ElBHPOI3tjQM&tbnid=tgz8eytokMXw2M:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fguncontrolnowusa.wordpress.com%2Fpage%2F3%2F&ei=xKY5U6TkJ-qpsQTJvYHwDQ&bvm=bv.63808443,d.aWc&psig=AFQjCNFoh7h1BnKNu2jTMdiqoY66OT29CQ&ust=1396373371345252"][IMG]https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRmuOF_2CVZsjYRi8vWhr1iRxLh-FXeXJljcLd1NNW0e2FHpvlz[/IMG][/URL]

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1066242]ok. See if you can follow this, it will be difficult to get past your inate bias, .[/quote]



Did Conn pass the laws before or after Newtown ?

1) people can still buy guns in Conn
2) No one has had any guns confiscated
3)No ones second amendment rights were harmed

............see if your innate bias can comprehend that .

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=Giantone;1066249]Did Conn pass the laws before or after Newtown ?

1) people can still buy guns in Conn
2) No one has had any guns confiscated
3)No ones second amendment rights were harmed

............see if your innate bias can comprehend that .[/quote]

apparently yours could not.

are you suggesting that before the Newtown shooting Connecticut's gun laws were not on the stricter side? I used your source, so I don't know when that images stats were taken. Do you?

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=Giantone;1066248]I see you can't answer the question .




[URL="https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=F_ElBHPOI3tjQM&tbnid=tgz8eytokMXw2M:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fguncontrolnowusa.wordpress.com%2Fpage%2F3%2F&ei=xKY5U6TkJ-qpsQTJvYHwDQ&bvm=bv.63808443,d.aWc&psig=AFQjCNFoh7h1BnKNu2jTMdiqoY66OT29CQ&ust=1396373371345252"][IMG]https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRmuOF_2CVZsjYRi8vWhr1iRxLh-FXeXJljcLd1NNW0e2FHpvlz[/IMG][/URL][/quote]LOL, I answered your question more fully than you know. Literally. You obviously can't grasp an opposing viewpoint to yours, this being an example where you have no idea what gun safety is. or what organizations like the NRA do.

But way to point yourself out to be a gun-grabbing idiot, just like I said in post #557, G1. :food-smil

Re: post #557. And I've posted this before, but maybe this is part of the gun-grabbers problem. Maybe it's all that you go by, based on some of your recent pics.
[IMG]http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/sgpaction/pages/403/attachments/original/1360642481/nravshollywood.jpg?1360642481[/IMG]

Re: Pro-gun article
 

Things are heating up .


[url=http://denver.cbslocal.com/video/10001623-trial-will-determine-if-gun-control-lawsuits-are-unconstitutional/]Trial Will Determine If Gun Control Lawsuits Are Unconstitutional « CBS Denver[/url]

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=Giantone;1066452]Things are heating up .


[url=http://denver.cbslocal.com/video/10001623-trial-will-determine-if-gun-control-lawsuits-are-unconstitutional/]Trial Will Determine If Gun Control Lawsuits Are Unconstitutional « CBS Denver[/url][/quote]The judge needs to be fired/dismissed/impeached if she rules against the lawsuit. Courts exist as one of the primary checks to abuse by the other two branches of government. Let alone the issue of the constitution's second amendment.

On the constitutional issue, wouldn't this mean that lawsuits involving the first amendment could be dismissed as well?

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=HailGreen28;1066473]The judge needs to be fired/dismissed/impeached if she rules against the lawsuit. Courts exist as one of the primary checks to abuse by the other two branches of government. Let alone the issue of the constitution's second amendment.

On the constitutional issue, wouldn't this mean that lawsuits involving the first amendment could be dismissed as well?[/quote]


I thought the same thing , it is why I posted it , are they reviewing the laws themselves or the lawsuits about the laws ?

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=Giantone;1066523]I thought the same thing , it is why I posted it , are they reviewing the laws themselves or the lawsuits about the laws ?[/quote]Yeah, the actual case sounded like it was about specifics of the lawsuit by the cops (Yay pro 2nd amend. police!) But the headline and opinion by the reporters and their "legal expert" seemed to me to be talking about the viability of bringing such a lawsuit to begin with.

(Paging our legal expert JoeRedskin, :confused?:)

Also, it's a world turned upside down if a state government can say "No you can't challenge our law on US Constitutional grounds". I thought Arizona would get skewered over immigration if they tried to justify themselves on similar grounds.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

My dad was a cop, he taught me gun safety and how to shoot when I was 7, oddly enough in 46 years the only living thing I have shot were rattlesnakes that were found too close to the house where kids played when I lived in the Southern California mountains and desert. Dad and all his cop buddies believed all their friend's and families should have guns in the house for home protection. They all said the chances of being saved from an armed intruder by a cop is rare unless the cop was your next door neighbor and heard the commotion.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/fort-hood-shooting-222528983.html?soc_src=mediacontentsharebuttons[/url]

[url=http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-26863033]BBC News - Shooting at US Army's Fort Hood base in Texas[/url]


The US has a mental health problem. Let's focus on the real cause of this bullshit instead of sweeping it under the rug.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

Yeah, second that.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=NC_Skins;1067148][url]http://news.yahoo.com/fort-hood-shooting-222528983.html?soc_src=mediacontentsharebuttons[/url]

[url=http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-26863033]BBC News - Shooting at US Army's Fort Hood base in Texas[/url]


[B]The US has a mental health problem. Let's focus on the real cause of this bullshit instead of sweeping it under the rug.[/B][/quote]

It seems like the old fashion one on one fist fight which was a popular way to settle disputes when I was a young man is a thing of the past. I also noticed it seems especially with the younger mass shooters a large percentage of them seem to be the dorky slightly built socially awkward types, ones that would have been picked on a lot back in the day.