Conn. Gov: ‘Guns Aren’t Making You Safer In Your House’

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

No, of course not. When someone is breaking it's far better for you and your family to cower in the closet and wait 20 minutes for the police to arrive. Hopefully they get there before you're wife is being raped and you have a bullet in your head.

But remember, nobody wants to take your guns away, just "control."

Malloy and Bloomberg met in the second-floor bullpen.

“There is a certain reality that America’s got to get used to that guns aren’t making you safer in your house. They’re increasing precipitously the opportunity for your child to kill themselves or someone else,” Malloy said following his half-hour conversation with Bloomberg. “There’s a reality that 19,000 people are going to commit suicide because there’s a gun in their house. And if there wasn’t a gun in that house and they didn’t commit suicide at that time, their chances of committing suicide at any time decreases by 90 percent.”

Conn. Governor To Meet With Bloomberg About Guns « CBS New York

 

[OriginalShroom]

I wonder if the Honorable Conn. Governor Malloy will give up all the guns that surround him and his family at tax payer expense?

 

[Missourian]

[youtube]MKTcoFnjNrU[/youtube]​

 

[Katzndogz]

This is how politicians lose credibility.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is how politicians lose credibility.

This is how politicians make mindless anti-gun loons swoon.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

This is how politicians lose credibility.

In Connecticut? I doubt it. That state is nothing but sissified boot lickers.

 

[martybegan]

I wonder if the Honorable Conn. Governor Malloy will give up all the guns that surround him and his family at tax payer expense?

But of course his life is worth far more than your's... peon.

/sarcasm

Maybe its because when he calls for the police they are right there, and he obviously thinks EVERYONE has a security detail 10 seconds away.

 

[KissMy]

The police are not obligated to protect you. Read Warren v. District of Columbia because if you don't have a gun & rely on the police for protection this will scare the shit out of you.

 

[hjmick]

He's right. It's my ability to use my gun that makes me safer in my home...

 

[Toronado3800]

Well I suppose the good govenor will regulate his militia how ever he sees fit. Darn states rights.

I do disagree btw. Wonder how far he can go before D.C. steps in.

 

[The Rabbi]

Look at all the gun related businesses that have fled the state. And what has he gotten for it? Because the truth is that rifles were used to commit like 2 murders in the last 5 years in the state.

 

[martybegan]

Well I suppose the good govenor will regulate his militia how ever he sees fit. Darn states rights.

I do disagree btw. Wonder how far he can go before D.C. steps in.

he can regulate the milita when he calls it, which means he can determine how it forms and what they need to bring with them when they form, and how they select officers.

What he can't impinge on is the PEOPLE's right to keep and bear arms, which is seperate from milita service, and the regulation of said milita.

 

[Toronado3800]

Well I suppose the good govenor will regulate his militia how ever he sees fit. Darn states rights.

I do disagree btw. Wonder how far he can go before D.C. steps in.

he can regulate the milita when he calls it, which means he can determine how it forms and what they need to bring with them when they form, and how they select officers.

What he can't impinge on is the PEOPLE's right to keep and bear arms, which is seperate from milita service, and the regulation of said milita.

Now I agree with you btw.

However I do not think it is the way it is written. All one sentence and all leaves it vague and up to the states.

Imagine "As a well regulated taxi service is necessary, the right if the ppl to own cars shall not be infringed".

Makes it sound like I am liable to be used for taxi service at a moments notice and that I must register my car with the taxi gods in my state.

 

[Skull Pilot]

This is how politicians lose credibility.

In Connecticut? I doubt it. That state is nothing but sissified boot lickers.

Maybe down in the southern end where all those faggot ex-New Yorkers live

 

[The Rabbi]

Well I suppose the good govenor will regulate his militia how ever he sees fit. Darn states rights.

I do disagree btw. Wonder how far he can go before D.C. steps in.

he can regulate the milita when he calls it, which means he can determine how it forms and what they need to bring with them when they form, and how they select officers.

What he can't impinge on is the PEOPLE's right to keep and bear arms, which is seperate from milita service, and the regulation of said milita.

Now I agree with you btw.

However I do not think it is the way it is written. All one sentence and all leaves it vague and up to the states.

Imagine "As a well regulated taxi service is necessary, the right if the ppl to own cars shall not be infringed".

Makes it sound like I am liable to be used for taxi service at a moments notice and that I must register my car with the taxi gods in my state.

Only if you're ill-informed.

 

[martybegan]

Well I suppose the good govenor will regulate his militia how ever he sees fit. Darn states rights.

I do disagree btw. Wonder how far he can go before D.C. steps in.

he can regulate the milita when he calls it, which means he can determine how it forms and what they need to bring with them when they form, and how they select officers.

What he can't impinge on is the PEOPLE's right to keep and bear arms, which is seperate from milita service, and the regulation of said milita.

Now I agree with you btw.

However I do not think it is the way it is written. All one sentence and all leaves it vague and up to the states.

Imagine "As a well regulated taxi service is necessary, the right if the ppl to own cars shall not be infringed".

Makes it sound like I am liable to be used for taxi service at a moments notice and that I must register my car with the taxi gods in my state.

No, it would mean the governor would be able to call out all citizens to provide taxi service, and it would be expected that you bring your own car.

Also since the taxi service needs to be regulated, how people would be called up would have to be spelled out, and agreed upon by the people via law.

Milita laws are still laws, bound by legislative rule, thus the people have the ability to set up the milita as they see fit.

 

[RoadVirus]

Antoher dumbshit politician talking about something he knows nothing about

 

[Ava]

"Conn. Gov: ‘Guns Aren’t Making You Safer In Your House’"

If you know how to use them, they are.

 

[Skull Pilot]

"Conn. Gov: ‘Guns Aren’t Making You Safer In Your House’"

If you know how to use them, they are.

I doubt if that faggot Malloy ever even held a gun.

 

[peach174]

Well I suppose the good Governor will regulate his militia how ever he sees fit. Darn states rights.

I do disagree btw. Wonder how far he can go before D.C. steps in.

he can regulate the milita when he calls it, which means he can determine how it forms and what they need to bring with them when they form, and how they select officers.

What he can't impinge on is the PEOPLE's right to keep and bear arms, which is seperate from milita service, and the regulation of said militia.

The Militia is no longer under the control of the States, it is now under the control of the President.
Thanks to two incompetent Democrats in Louisiana (the Mayor of New Orleans and the Governor) after Hurricane Katrina, the Republicans over reacted and got a bill through in 2007,with the help of the Democrats who took over congress again in 2007, that takes the States Governors rights away with their National Guard.

National Guard of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The John Warner(Repub) Defense Authorization Act of 2007 Pub.L. 109-364 Federal law was changed in section 1076 so that the Governor of a state is no longer the sole commander in chief of their state's National Guard during emergencies within the state. The President of the United States will now be able to take total control of a state's National Guard units without the governor's consent. In a letter to Congress, all 50 governors opposed the increase in power of the President over the National Guard.

The Progressives in both Parties are out of control.