This is a MUSIC forum. Irrelevant or disrespectful posts/topics will be removed by Admin. Please report any forum spam or inappropriate posts HERE.

General discussion for non music topics. BE RESPECTFUL OR YOUR POSTS WILL BE DELETED.

Moderators: bandmixmod1, jimmy990, spikedace

#267889 by ANGELSSHOTGUN
Mon Oct 24, 2016 10:39 am
RuiMusik wrote:As usual Glenny you just write a bunch of crap and don't back it with a source of any kind, so I did my own research. And what you wrote is not factual.

Connecticut banned the sale of semi-automatic "assault-style" weapons in 2013 after the Sandy Hook massacre. It didn't just happen. And guess what? Crime is down in that state:

"Since 2013, Connecticut has prohibited the AR-15 and the Sig Saucer MCX and has since seen a decrease in violent crimes.

According to the Governor’s office, gun-related homicides are down 40 percent in Hartford,

Bridgeport, and New Haven this year compared to the last."

http://wtnh.com/2016/06/17/malloy-asks- ... thers-day/

Stop being such a bold-faced liar.


PURE BULL sh*t!
YOU SHOULD READ THE LAW!
THERE ARE PEOPLE IN JAIL BECAUSE THEY TRIED TO REGISTER THEIR GUNS 3 DAYS LATE!

Your ignorance of the truth only leads to ONE CONCLUSION!...........

Just for the record... MALLOY is one of the biggest outright LIARS that is destroying AMERICA.
You are just a harmless truth distorting teller compared to him. This is the real problem... MALLOY is violating the 14th amendment. He is the law, VIOLATING THE LAW!
Jimmy, I don't even want to bother insulting you.
#267900 by t-Roy and The Smoking Section
Mon Oct 24, 2016 4:14 pm
Was there anything more ridiculous in the last debate than Hillary’s answer on guns? When pressed by Wallace to explain her opposition to 2008’s landmark District of Columbia v. Heller decision, Clinton went through a checklist of platitudes before landing on the following:

You mentioned the Heller decision, and what I was saying that you reference, Chris, was that I disagreed with the way the court applied the Second Amendment in that case. Because what the District of Columbia was trying to do was protect toddlers from guns.

The thing is, the Heller case revolves around Richard Heller, a then 66-year-old police officer in Washington DC, who was allowed to carry a gun in a federal office building to protect politicians and strangers, but not in his home to protect himself, his family, or his property. Also of note, the Heller decision had nothing to do with toddlers or saving toddlers’ lives or toddler gun safety or even toddlers shooting at each other.

The Heller case ended Washington’s “total ban on handguns” (quoting the Supreme Court) and codified the Second Amendment as an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

Hillary admits she supports an effective ban on all handguns (for the toddlers). What “application” of the decision does she oppose if not the individual’s right to own a gun?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests