Connecticut caving in on gun law

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

http://news.yahoo.com/conn-lawmakers-revise-gun-control-131456479.html

Frightened out of their pants by the NRA litigation challenging the unconstitutional new law in CT, legislatrs attempted to clarify the obviously vague law. Vague laws are unconstitutional and this one would have been easily overturned.

The NRA celbrates this turn of events as now the decision will be based on the unconstitutional banningof a right based on arbitrary cosmetic features of a mechanical device. Though it would have been easier to overturn the law prior to the lawmakers total panic...it will be more effective to overturn it now.

Poorly crafted legislation was passed in three states earlier this year. Two of the states have already revised their legislation in the face of legal challenges. They will be overturned as unconstitutional in NRA backed litigation.

[GandD 5,966]

So you guys are against government oppression but for NRA oppression? Oh wait, you only care if your views are being oppressed, not the majority. My bad, I forgot.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

http://news.yahoo.com/conn-lawmakers-revise-gun-control-131456479.html

Frightened out of their pants by the NRA litigation challenging the unconstitutional new law in CT, legislatrs attempted to clarify the obviously vague law. Vague laws are unconstitutional and this one would have been easily overturned.

The NRA celbrates this turn of events as now the decision will be based on the unconstitutional banningof a right based on arbitrary cosmetic features of a mechanical device. Though it would have been easier to overturn the law prior to the lawmakers total panic...it will be more effective to overturn it now.

Poorly crafted legislation was passed in three states earlier this year. Two of the states have already revised their legislation in the face of legal challenges. They will be overturned as unconstitutional in NRA backed litigation.

Don't you remember. The NRA is irrelevant. It must be true certain. Liberals told us so during the last attempt to ban guns that look likes assault weapons. . Wonder how that worked. And if the irrelevant. NRA. Came into play.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

So you guys are against government oppression but for NRA oppression? Oh wait, you only care if your views are being oppressed, not the majority. My bad, I forgot.

They have no idea what they stand for. As long as they get to do whatever THEY want, they're happy.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

It helps to read the article before commenting on it, let alone posting it. It aids in the prevention of foot in mouth disease.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

No time to read at 3am! Post and rant! That's all there is.

[justashooter 430]

some people only care about the first amendment. others care about all of them.

[GandD 5,966]

some people only care about the first amendment. others care about all of them.

Some people only care about the 2nd amendment. Others care about all of them.

Edited June 5, 2013 by GandD

[JohnR! 5,495]

Some people only care about the 2nd amendment. Others care about all of them.

The irony is that most who care about the 2nd amendment believe the 1st only applies to them...

[GandD 5,966]

The irony is that most who care about the 2nd amendment believe the 1st only applies to them...

Personally, I see the constitution and ammendments to be subject to whatever the majority of the country wants them to be. So did the founders, so they created an alley for us to change things we didn't like. If they didn't want anything changed, they wouldn't have given us the tools to do it.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

But apparently if you want change, then you're anti-Constitution and anti-American. It's very weird.

[JohnR! 5,495]

Personally, I see the constitution and ammendments to be subject to whatever the majority of the country wants them to be. So did the founders, so they created an alley for us to change things we didn't like. If they didn't want anything changed, they wouldn't have given us the tools to do it.

The conundrum constitutionalists have at hand - Scalia being the flag bearer of the movement - is that you have to balance the original text of the Constitution with its contemporary paradigm, and that of today. This is the point most miss when looking at the document.

I believe there is not one person who doubts what the meaning of the amendments were, in particular that of the second amendment, but what most seem to forget is that the text was forged at a time when 'arms' in and of itself was very easily defined. I find it ironic that the constitutionally-challenged of today laugh at the notion that the 2nd amendment, if interpreted objectively, would give every American the right to posses nuclear arms, all the while showing their myopic support to certain types of arms and guns, the existence of which would have been the subject of sci fi at the time of the Founding Fathers. The Constitution does not specify that only projectile-launching arms are to be inferred from its text. Nor do I believe the Founding Fathers would envisage a world where Americans would simply open fire on a crowd just for fun.

Unfortunately that seems to be endemic to a certain stratum of the American populace, for whom laws supersede common-sense and rationale thought.

[Harsh_77 718]

Personally, I see the constitution and ammendments to be subject to whatever the majority of the country wants them to be. So did the founders, so they created an alley for us to change things we didn't like. If they didn't want anything changed, they wouldn't have given us the tools to do it.

For the gun rights there is no majority.

Media has been playing around with the sample size, demographics and the way the questions are worded to give them outcome of poll whichever they want.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

For the gun rights there is no majority.

Media has been playing around with the sample size, demographics and the way the questions are worded to give them outcome of poll whichever they want.

It's all a conspiracy. Always the media's fault. Anything to deny the point of view that disagrees with yours.

[Karee 4,190]

The conundrum constitutionalists have at hand - Scalia being the flag bearer of the movement - is that you have to balance the original text of the Constitution with its contemporary paradigm, and that of today. This is the point most miss when looking at the document.

I believe there is not one person who doubts what the meaning of the amendments were, in particular that of the second amendment, but what most seem to forget is that the text was forged at a time when 'arms' in and of itself was very easily defined. I find it ironic that the constitutionally-challenged of today laugh at the notion that the 2nd amendment, if interpreted objectively, would give every American the right to posses nuclear arms, all the while showing their myopic support to certain types of arms and guns, the existence of which would have been the subject of sci fi at the time of the Founding Fathers. The Constitution does not specify that only projectile-launching arms are to be inferred from its text. Nor do I believe the Founding Fathers would envisage a world where Americans would simply open fire on a crowd just for fun.

Unfortunately that seems to be endemic to a certain stratum of the American populace, for whom laws supersede common-sense and rationale rational thought.

Regardless, the amendment is there. Don't like it, change it. They've changed it 27 times so far. What's one more?

I see you got out your big book again.