My point is, if you think we're all unarmed up here, you should try us Canadians out.

Naw I don't think yer a thief... pretty good **** but not a thief LOL

Oh that's such a position of insecurity that I'll ignore it altogether

It's not insecure position to believe people should be able to protect themselves, it's logical.
You didn't ignore my statement, you just didn't make a rebuttal.

It was a polite way of acknowledging your post by ignoring your insecurity as a reason to possess weapons on the streets

Seems reasonable, Whatever it takes! Amend the Amendments!

Guns=violence no place for that on the streets

Seems reasonable, Whatever it takes! Amend the Amendments!

Gun toting on the streets should be illegal

And you still have not presented a rebuttal showing how it's insecure for a person to protect themselves.
I don't carry a gun except when I'm hunting, I'm just not so insecure that I feel threatened by law abiding people who do posses a gun on the streets. It seems you are showing insecurity about law abiding people possessing a gun on the streets.

It seem to be another case of someone being guilty of their own accusation.

The second amendment was drafted as a way to protect against tyranny in Government... When did it Morph into protecting against "bubba" on the street? There is a problem, more guns ain't the answer chum, the drug epidemic is changing peoples perceptions of real danger with overreactions resulting in unnecessary deaths.

I'm quite insecure about 2yr olds grabbing a weapon from under mommas seat and shooting her in the back yup... your law abiding idiots are still leaving loaded weapons in their vehicles that are easily stolen and fed into the criminal element or fall into children hands.

You're right, I should have completely ignored your azz lol

The second amendment was drafted as a way to protect against tyranny in Government... When did it Morph into protecting against "bubba" on the street? There is a problem, more guns ain't the answer chum, the drug epidemic is changing peoples perceptions of real danger with overreactions resulting in unnecessary deaths.

I'm quite insecure about 2yr olds grabbing a weapon from under mommas seat and shooting her in the back yup... your law abiding idiots are still leaving loaded weapons in their vehicles that are easily stolen and fed into the criminal element or fall into children hands.

You're right, I should have completely ignored your azz lol

The second amendment was drafted as a way to protect against tyranny in Government... When did it Morph into protecting against "bubba" on the street? There is a problem, more guns ain't the answer chum, the drug epidemic is changing peoples perceptions of real danger with overreactions resulting in unnecessary deaths.

I'm quite insecure about 2yr olds grabbing a weapon from under mommas seat and shooting her in the back yup... your law abiding idiots are still leaving loaded weapons in their vehicles that are easily stolen and fed into the criminal element or fall into children hands.

You're right, I should have completely ignored your azz lol

Lawmakers in Connecticut have just passed legislation that will allow for law enforcement to confiscate guns from individuals who are accused of domestic abuse.

protect women from the increased lethality at a critical point in a relationship: when they are trying to leave their abusers

i think you are right here, it seems more like a "test", to see if/how the people respond..

* Has Trump the ultimate American gunslinger, spoke on gun rights?

** Most entertaining...

Lawmakers in Connecticut have just passed legislation that will allow for law enforcement to confiscate guns from individuals who are accused of domestic abuse.

Notice the word “accused” and not “convicted” in that sentence.

Scary times for liberty, folks.

From TheBlaze:

Under the legislation, suspects would have 24 hours after being accused to surrender all firearms.

After nearly three hours of debate, the bill was approved with a 23-13 amid failed attempted by Republicans to amend the bill.

The Connecticut Post explains the intention behind the legislation:

The goal is to protect women from the increased lethality at a critical point in a relationship: when they are trying to leave their abusers. About 14 domestic homicides occur annually in Connecticut, half of which are caused by guns.

While 5,000 temporary restraining orders are issued annually, about half result in permanent orders. The bill, which was approved last week in the House, would require court hearings within seven days and if judges decide against extending the orders, weapons would be returned within five days later. Currently, court hearings are held 14 days later.

Though there was some opposition to the bill due to gun rights concerns, the Post reports “there was little evidence of gun-rights activists in the Capitol on Monday.”

“I do believe we have to honor the Constitution, we have to honor the Second Amendment and we have to honor the rights of individuals,” Republican Sen. Rob Kane said.

You know, I was always under the impression that punishment didn’t come until after the crime and that folks were innocent until proven guilty.

I guess those are old fashioned notions that our oh-so-wonderful progressive society has moved well beyond.

This legislation will most certainly be abused by the powers that be and there’s little doubt in my mind that many guns will be confiscated due to false accusations.

Now don’t get me wrong. I’m all for protecting folks from domestic abuse. However, I don’t think violating the rights of Americans guaranteed under the Constitution is the way to go about it.

http://www.youngcons.com/breaking-democrats-pass-gun-confiscation-bill-for-those-accused-of-domestic-violence/

martin luther king blvd...

SO now you want to talk about the 2nd amendment and the drug epidemic??? Nice diatribe CHUM...but you STILL haven't explained or justified your original assertion.

Yes, your azz should have ignored my post and shouldn't have inferred, incorrectly, that I'm insecure for believing people should be able to defend themselves without being able to defend your accusation.

BTW I was born in Chatham, Ontario and have relatives that still live in Canada including a cop who has told me people would be shocked by what isn't reported. My ex has brothers who live in the Bruce Peninsula who never go anywhere without have a loaded gun in their vehicles and it's not because there are bears in the area. Maybe if there was freedom of the press the public would know about the REAL amount of gun violence in Canada. Shhhhh....if it's not reported it never happened and there is an image that needs to be protected.

My ex has brothers who live in the Bruce Peninsula who never go anywhere without have a loaded gun in their vehicles and it's not because there are bears in the area.

Please! Nuf with the BS

No kidding, there's a criminal element in Canada too! Where do you think they get their weapons?

That's right, indirectly from American gloves boxes.


I think it's reasonable to remove weapons from spouses who threaten or assault. Only a fool would dispute that

aww poor canucks... just gives you something to whine about...

Well, while I'm reasonably sure this wont stand, I think it's being described incorrectly in that article.

The problem is with the word "accused." The article talks about it as though as soon as the spouse says "he/she hit me!" that the cops will swoop in and demand to take any and all weapons away.

The thing is, "accused" often means "formally charged." We already HAVE laws, which are constitutional, and which take all sorts of freedoms and rights away from formally charged people.

My point is, that depending on exactly how they wrote this up, it may or may not pass a constitutionality test.