Skip to comments.[CT] Coalition to take on gun lobby
Posted on 09/24/2013 7:21:37 AM PDT by ModernDayCato
click here to read article
I was out on a lake the other day still trying to find my lost firearms that sunk with my boat. Funny, I thought I saw another Freeper there looking for his too.
Think that might have been me. Shame I lost the boat too.
“....save just one life.” I feel for the grieving father who said that, but I’ve always detested that language. No, sir.....shredding the Constitution to save one life is not a trade I’m willing to make.
...local and federal officials called on citizens across the country to form a coalition large enough to battle the powerful gun lobby.
The Nazis are on the march across the nation.
Leftists will never recognize the real causes behind so-called “gun violence”.
And that’s 50+ years of liberal social policy.
But Alexis was following Joe The Clown Biden’s advice and bought a shotgun, totally legally and with a background check. You mean the gun grabbers are now going to outlaw shotguns? What will Jill Biden use for protection then? ...Oh yeah, that detail of taxpayer-funded Secret Service protection will probably take up the slack for the Veep and his Mrs.
“This gun culture and lack of conflict resolution skills also calls for an educational component,” Nardozzi said.
Nice little suggestion that the ignorant masses are in need of reeducation. Starting with the children.
Surprising somebody didn’t shout “Nobody’s coming to take away your guns!!”
I say we just ask them if they just want to take our guns and when they say yes we shoot them and end this push for tyranny.
“What makes the NRA strong is that they can mobilize tens of thousands of people on a dime,..”
Correction: “...can mobilize tens of thousands of gun owners at any time.” - best they remember.
Why is there a "gun lobby", but no one in the kneepad media ever refers to the opposition as an "anti-gun lobby"?
Simply tell the “ If you don’t like our current gun laws, then change them by amending the constitution”
How come they never talk about the “gun control lobby”?
Wasn't there another weekend of mayhem in Chicago this weekend?
One wonders how many of these politicians snort Coke, or ignore the deaths caused by deadly drugs in far greater numbers than those caused by sicko gunmen.
Such a pity that the mall shoppers in Nairobi were not skilled in conflict resolution skills.
A most ridiculous lie.
If mass shootings were the new normal, then there would be fewer solitary victims than victims of mass shooting events.
Obvious untruths in the pursuit of tyranny have the same reek as tyranny itself, regardless of stated motive.
The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it.
A gaggle of fools and traitors. When are they going to realize that gun free zones are the same thing as target rich free fire zones? Bad guys will always be able to get guns, wherever they are at.
I don’t believe the Constitution can be amended to strip individuals of their God given rights. If it could, then it really isn’t a right.
I dont believe the Constitution can be amended to strip individuals of their God given rights. If it could, then it really isnt a right.
Exactly. The “Bill of Rights” are inalienable rights.
But Connecticut is sixth in the death by knife category. source I reckon if there isn't going to be a gunfight, bringing a knife is OK.
I must note that over half of the victims are listed as "white", so banning white folks should reduce the murder rate by at least half, right?
It makes just as much sense to blame the victim as the tool rather than place the blame where it belongs--on a nutcase or criminal psychopath.
If laws against murder won't stop people from murdering others, what makes these nitwits think laws against guns will?
The Sandy hook shooting could have as easily been a slaughter with a machete or blunt instrument(s). There was no effective means present to defend against either of those, either.
These anti-freedom gun groups would not exist and would not be continuing their assaults on society’s true protectors were it not for the behind-the-scenes money that is available for them. They create groups to chase after the big dollars that wealthy leftists offer them. That is where the real explanation for these groups lies.
The Anti-gun people depend on people with Guns to enforce their ideology.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
Thus tyranny advances, by popular acclaim.
2nd amendment: Its The Law of the Land
Ohhh thats right! Thats only the case when the National Socialist Left deems it to be the case. ///sarc.
Wow! I hear that happening all over the places these days.
This announcement is particularly repugnant because it comes from the mouth of the most loathsome and vile of liars, Richard “Fake Vietnam Veteran” Blumenthal.
I had the misfortune to be present when he lied about his fictional “service” in Vietnam to a group of elderly citizens being commended for helping wounded vets from Afghanistan and Iraq. I didn’t know about his LIE at the time, but he spewed his false testimony to veterans of WWII and Korea without any hesitation. The fact that this bum is a U.S. Senator from my home state breaks my heart. Nothing that he says has a speck of credibility.
Banning swimming pools and peanut butter would save more kids then banning guns.
And they aren't going up against the "gun lobby", what ever that is, they are going up against 80 million gun owners and the Constitutional Rights of everyone in the country.
got my wife out of MA and she said it was the best move she had ever done. Now we live in St Augustine, St Johns county north east FL which is one of the most republican counties in the state.
red is republican , blue obviously the small college and the small black area.
We have no Dems here and my wife feels we are much more free .
Good luck at getting out of CT or New England.
wonder what the numbers are for drug deaths which never seem to be mentioned.
I hear ya. Wish we could do the same... we're stuck here for now unfortunately.
Any politician who engages in overturning the 2nd Amendment should be immediately removed from office and prosecuted for treason. 0bama has made treason fashionable whereas it should be punishable with a long prison term.
"Any change we can make that can save just one life,
Lets trade the blood for the millions who have died for our freedom for "just one life". Who can argue with that logic?
I refuse to treat him or any other of the other parents of SH who are running around for more gun control. They are politicians, not grieving parents. BTW, were are they getting the money to do this?
Ok, Ron. Do me a favor and go the south side of Chicago and tell me how the strictest gun laws in the nation are working.
Ban alcohol and drugs you gutless nutcase.
#4 Obama’s line, Biden’s line, etc. “If it would save one life..” while killing other unprotected innocent people as “collateral damage”.
The libs never think of anything but power.
Blumenthal - a proven liar. He’s a good one to talk but he’s a nut, typical of Conn. Democrats.
a once literally crime-free state (I used to visit relatives in Bridgeport and Trumbull over the past 50 years). Last time I was in Bridgeport it looked like Puerto Rico, Sons of Anarchy, and Philadelphia (where I also lived in the 60’s).
That’s nothing to brag about, Blumenthal, you ahole.
The number of people killed in mass shootings hasn’t really changed much in decades, despite stricter laws. The population has increased, so the potential for being a mass shooting victim has gone down.
How come we don’t have a gang control lobby?
You know they had heavily armed police at that event, most likely with eeeeeeevil SBR’s.
I hate Connecticut Nazis (and the rest of them, too).
Ron seems to be pretty SLOW. Comparing Connecticut with Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, etc. is something only retards would do. The metrosexual city boys can have all of the gun control they want. They just don’t need to bring that crap out west. We don’t need it.
That explains why the other places with the strictest gun control laws in the nation - Chicago, New York City, New Orleans, Washington D.C. - have virtually no shootings at all. Well, some. Well, a lot.
Is there an accurate list of what nations have the highest and lowest gun death rates, i.e. the highest and lowest numbers of gun deaths and gun murders per capita? If we can see an accurate list and compare and contrast their gun control policies, maybe that can help defenders of the 2nd Amendment crush the opposition on this.
It would be great to have a complete collection of this material since this is getting grating and tiring and I want the arguments of the gun grabbers to be crushed and shredded and obliterated so badly that nobody with an iota of common sense would ever, ever believe them.
While we are distracted, he moves to have this signed!!!!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/24/kerry-to-sign-un-arms-treaty-Kerry to sign UN arms treaty, despite senators’ opposition
Published September 24, 2013 FoxNews.
Secretary of State John Kerry plans to sign a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation on Wednesday, a senior State Department official told Fox News — despite warnings from lawmakers that the Senate will not ratify the agreement.
A State official said the treaty would “reduce the risk that international transfers of conventional arms will be used to carry out the world’s worst crimes,” while protecting gun rights.
“The treaty builds on decades of cooperative efforts to stem the international, illegal, and illicit trade in conventional weapons that benefits terrorists and rogue agents,” the official said.
U.S. lawmakers, though, have long claimed that the treaty could lead to new gun control measures. Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., one of the most vocal opponents of the treaty, sent a letter to Kerry declaring it “dead in the water,” since a majority of senators has gone on record against the agreement.
“The administration is wasting precious time trying to sign away our laws to the global community and unelected U.N. bureaucrats,” he wrote.
Kerry, who is in New York attending the U.N. General Assembly session, announced earlier this year that the administration planned to sign the treaty.
The treaty would require countries that ratify it to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms and components and to regulate arms brokers, but it will not explicitly control the domestic use of weapons in any country.
Still, gun-rights supporters on Capitol Hill warn the treaty could be used as the basis for additional gun regulations inside the U.S. and have threatened not to ratify.
Over the summer, 130 members of Congress signed a letter to President Obama and Kerry urging them to reject the measure for this and other reasons.
The chance of adoption by the U.S. is slim. A two-thirds majority would be needed in the Senate to ratify.
What impact the treaty will have in curbing the estimated $60 billion global arms trade remains to be seen. The U.N. treaty will take effect after 50 countries ratify it, and a lot will depend on which ones ratify and which ones don’t, and how stringently it is implemented.
The Control Arms Coalition, which includes hundreds of non-governmental organizations in more than 100 countries that promoted an Arms Trade Treaty, has said it expects many of the world’s top arms exporters — including Britain, Germany and France — to sign alongside emerging exporters such as Brazil and Mexico. It said the United States is expected to sign later this year.
The coalition notes that more than 500,000 people are killed by armed violence every year and predicted that “history will be made” when many U.N. members sign the treaty, which it says is designed “to protect millions living in daily fear of armed violence and at risk of rape, assault, displacement and death.”
Many violence-wracked countries, including Congo and South Sudan, are also expected to sign. The coalition said their signature — and ratification — will make it more difficult for illicit arms to cross borders.
The treaty covers battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, large-caliber artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and missile launchers, and small arms and light weapons.
It prohibits states that ratify it from transferring conventional weapons if they violate arms embargoes or if they promote acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. The treaty also prohibits the export of conventional arms if they could be used in attacks on civilians or civilian buildings such as schools and hospitals.
In addition, the treaty requires countries to take measures to prevent the diversion of conventional weapons to the illicit market. This is among the provisions that gun-rights supporters in Congress are concerned about.
Fox News’ Nicole Busch and The Associated Press contributed to this report.