Connecticut SC rules gun maker can be sued

So the better background check would have helped how?

so don't have better background checks, why?

Not what I asked.

The current background check system will refuse to authorize the sale of any firearm to anyone who:
  • Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
  • Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
  • Is a fugitive from justice;
  • Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
  • Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;
  • Is illegally or unlawfully in the United States;
  • Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
  • Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship;
  • Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner;
  • Has been convicted in any court of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence", a defined term in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(33)[21]

What would you add to that?

And it is required by federal law to report people to the system that fit the above criteria.

then why is there a problem? & what is the common denominator?

One common denominator is mental health professionals not reporting their patients.

nooooooooo........... that would be guns. g-u-n-s. however, there certainly are peripheral reasons why mass murders are just so frequent in this country.

Once again, illegal gun use by a tiny minority of gun owners (less than 1/10th of 1%) is justifcation for removing them all?
 
tedium060617.gif
What's what?
Can't address what I said?
Does a $1500 tax laid on abortions does violate the constitution, or not?
Why?

I would be curious to hear playtime's answer to that as well.
 
so don't have better background checks, why?

Not what I asked.

The current background check system will refuse to authorize the sale of any firearm to anyone who:
  • Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
  • Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
  • Is a fugitive from justice;
  • Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
  • Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;
  • Is illegally or unlawfully in the United States;
  • Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
  • Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship;
  • Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner;
  • Has been convicted in any court of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence", a defined term in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(33)[21]

What would you add to that?

And it is required by federal law to report people to the system that fit the above criteria.

then why is there a problem? & what is the common denominator?

One common denominator is mental health professionals not reporting their patients.

nooooooooo........... that would be guns. g-u-n-s. however, there certainly are peripheral reasons why mass murders are just so frequent in this country.

Once again, illegal gun use by a tiny minority of gun owners (less than 1/10th of 1%) is justifcation for removing them all?

nope. never said that.
 
Not what I asked.

The current background check system will refuse to authorize the sale of any firearm to anyone who:
  • Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
  • Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
  • Is a fugitive from justice;
  • Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
  • Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;
  • Is illegally or unlawfully in the United States;
  • Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
  • Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship;
  • Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner;
  • Has been convicted in any court of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence", a defined term in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(33)[21]

What would you add to that?

And it is required by federal law to report people to the system that fit the above criteria.

then why is there a problem? & what is the common denominator?

One common denominator is mental health professionals not reporting their patients.

nooooooooo........... that would be guns. g-u-n-s. however, there certainly are peripheral reasons why mass murders are just so frequent in this country.

Once again, illegal gun use by a tiny minority of gun owners (less than 1/10th of 1%) is justifcation for removing them all?

nope. never said that.

But you want the removal of privately owned guns.
 
you don't hunt with nor use an AR15 for defense.
The AR15 platform is perfectly suitable for both - indeed, perfectly suitable for every traditionally legal use of a firearm.
How do you not know this?
sure... if you are hunting humans & wanna defend yerself from the deep state.
Ah. You know --nothing-- about the wide variety of configurations available for the AR15.
How can you be taken seriously when you argue from ignorance?
 
you don't hunt with nor use an AR15 for defense.
The AR15 platform is perfectly suitable for both - indeed, perfectly suitable for every traditionally legal use of a firearm.
How do you not know this?

sure... if you are hunting humans & wanna defend yerself from the deep state.

Or want to hunt wild hogs.
Or want to protect livestock, pets and other wild animals from coyote.

& an AR15 the sole provider to the job?
 
then why is there a problem? & what is the common denominator?

One common denominator is mental health professionals not reporting their patients.

nooooooooo........... that would be guns. g-u-n-s. however, there certainly are peripheral reasons why mass murders are just so frequent in this country.

Once again, illegal gun use by a tiny minority of gun owners (less than 1/10th of 1%) is justifcation for removing them all?

nope. never said that.

But you want the removal of privately owned guns.

no never said that either. why do you feel the need to make shit up? go find any post where i said that.
 
you don't hunt with nor use an AR15 for defense.
The AR15 platform is perfectly suitable for both - indeed, perfectly suitable for every traditionally legal use of a firearm.
How do you not know this?

sure... if you are hunting humans & wanna defend yerself from the deep state.

Or want to hunt wild hogs.
Or want to protect livestock, pets and other wild animals from coyote.

& an AR15 the sole provider to the job?

If you are only looking to ban the AR, you are certainly operating from a position of ignorance. There are numerous rifles that can do what the AR does, or better. The differences are cosmetic.
 
One common denominator is mental health professionals not reporting their patients.

nooooooooo........... that would be guns. g-u-n-s. however, there certainly are peripheral reasons why mass murders are just so frequent in this country.

Once again, illegal gun use by a tiny minority of gun owners (less than 1/10th of 1%) is justifcation for removing them all?

nope. never said that.

But you want the removal of privately owned guns.

no never said that either. why do you feel the need to make shit up? go find any post where i said that.

You did say "i never said they would... however, they can be made to be very expensive & difficult to acquire.". Which is essentially removing firearms from the majority of people.
 
What's what?
Can't address what I said?
Why?
I would be curious to hear playtime's answer to that as well.
abortion is a medical procedure & healthcare is not taxed.
Anything can be taxed; taxes are constitutional.
Does a $1500 tax laid on abortions does violate the constitution, or not?
Why?

i don't think it's un constitutional & if it stayed legal - & that is the only way to do it... alrighty then. however............... you are giving a strawman arguement, because abortion doesn't affect anyone outside my home nor society as a whole.

nice try though.
 
you don't hunt with nor use an AR15 for defense.
The AR15 platform is perfectly suitable for both - indeed, perfectly suitable for every traditionally legal use of a firearm.
How do you not know this?

sure... if you are hunting humans & wanna defend yerself from the deep state.

Or want to hunt wild hogs.
Or want to protect livestock, pets and other wild animals from coyote.

& an AR15 the sole provider to the job?

A semi auto rifle with a high velocity round is one of the best things to use against feral hogs. Coyote are difficult to hunt. Being able to take 2 at basically the same time can save more livestock, pets and threatened wildlife.
 
nooooooooo........... that would be guns. g-u-n-s. however, there certainly are peripheral reasons why mass murders are just so frequent in this country.

Once again, illegal gun use by a tiny minority of gun owners (less than 1/10th of 1%) is justifcation for removing them all?

nope. never said that.

But you want the removal of privately owned guns.

no never said that either. why do you feel the need to make shit up? go find any post where i said that.

You did say "i never said they would... however, they can be made to be very expensive & difficult to acquire.". Which is essentially removing firearms from the majority of people.

no... not really. people still smoke. right? the only weapon i would have zero problems removed from society are the rapid fire, multi round high velocity killing machines. the designer - eugene stoner i think is his name said it should never have been allowed into the public's hands.
 

Forum List

Back
Top