Times when you hate to be right...

Not so fast, chum....YOU were the one professing that my proposal violates the 2nd Amendment regarding "infringement". To date, you have yet to conclusively prove such with a rational, logical, fact based statement. You made the accusation, the burden of proof is on you. So put up or shut up. I'll wait.

 

Really? Explain why not, if you really know what an "iron pipeline" is in this discussion.

 

I don't accept your consistent opinion laden blather as fact....nor do I accept your insipid stubbornness as correctness when the valid, documented facts contradict you. The chronology of the posts back me on this, your insipid gain saying non-withstanding. So if this is the height of your debate skills, I won't waste any more time with you on this subject.

 

Your denial is pathetic, because clearly you are not that stupid. You're done.

 

title from the link: "WEAPONS BANNED AS ASSAULT WEAPONS "

From the subtitle:

ASSAULT WEAPONS

The law, with limited exceptions, bans assault weapons. The initial assault weapons ban was passed in 1993 (PA 93-306). A 2001 act (PA 01-13002-130) exempted possession of certain types of weapons from the ban. This year, PA 13-3 substantially expanded the ban and made other substantive changes. (For a more detailed legislative history of the assault weapons ban, see OLR Report 2012-R-0362.)

From the OLR Report link:

In 1993, the legislature prohibited possessing, selling, or transporting assault weapons, with limited exceptions. The 1993 act also gave those who lawfully possessed an assault weapon before October 1, 1993, nine months to apply for a certificate of possession to continue to possess the weapon. The act made a number of other changes regarding assault weapons (PA 93-306).

Since 1993, only five acts addressed assault weapons.

1. A 1994 act extended the deadline for those who lawfully possessed an assault weapon before October 1, 1993 to apply for a certificate of possession.

It pays to read carefully and comprehensively, don't cha know. Try it sometimes, as I'm embarrassed for you.

 

They would just come over the southern border just like illegal drugs do. The cartels would just love for the United States to ban another inanimate object so they could open up another black market and profit like hell out of it.

 

I don't accept your consistent opinion laden blather as fact....nor do I accept your insipid stubbornness as correctness when the valid, documented facts contradict you.

 

What did I say that was proven wrong?

 

You do realize YOUR link is not in any way relevant to the Federal AWB we are discussing except it mirrors many, but not all of the same provisions. Others have pointed that out to you already. I tried to get you to correct your own mistake but that is not to be.

My link was the provisions of the federal ban that is the subject of the conversation. Please read it. Current Connecticut law is irrelevant except as a tool to demonstrate you have no idea what you are talking about. If you had actually read your link you would understand how it substantiates my claims on the Fed AWB. So thanks for that.

Read my link and think about it. Get someone you know and trust to explain it to you.

 

agree, though it is the same, saying some people still drive drunk, so we should not have laws against drunk driving is wrong

we hope to reduce crime, we can never eliminate it 100%

if ar-15's were as hard to get as machine guns, less mass shooters would use them

 

Since no such thing happened during the 1994 AWB term, your supposition is rendered incorrect based on historical comparison. Hint: the iron pipe line is a NATIONAL problem. That should point you in the right direction. Get crack'in!

 

You and your like minded brethren have a bad habit of thinking you can ignore what you don't like and then hype excerpts of what you approve of in a printed medium. Pure folly on your part. My link is valid, as it describes exactly the part of the law which validates the need for my proposal. If you think not, then here's how I proved it to a compadre of yours http://www.politicalforum.com/index...te-to-be-right.561198/page-11#post-1070995590

Next time you make a claim, make sure you understand the ENTIRE law.
.

 

Here is your claim that I initially responded to. You wrote this.

This is patently false. No ifs ands or buts. It’s false and my link proves it. You can erroneously post Connecticut law all you want but it’s completely irrelevant. You brought up the 1994 federal AWB as I show in the quote above. I supplied a link that explicitly stated in plain English that existing weapons were grandfathered and transferable. Read the link that explains the federal AWB that you referenced. Your statement is false.

Nobody cares about Connecticut. Connecticut law is completely irrelevant to this conversation that you started on the Federal AWB. Do you not understand the difference between federal and state law? This is so bizarre I can hardly believe it’s happening.

Please, I’m not trying to be cruel, but you need to get someone you know and that can reason with you to explain this to you.

 

so umm... does this mean I get to ignore this blathering nonsense?

I believe it does.

 

Exactly. Why do they want the LEGAL guns gone? So we can’t defend ourselves from those same Democrats.
It’s the same thing they did in Venezuela, take the guns and you have total control.
My solution: Get rid of easy targets (gun free zones) and start educating more citizens on the reality of guns. They save more lives than they take in properly educated hands.
I mean come on, arm more instructors at the schools, let people in church carry, etc..., and see how fast those mass shootings stop.

 

Your snarky quips, sarcasm & accusations of lying are hardly persuading anyone.

Yes, I'd say we're certainly done here since you're unable to grasp the simple reality that attempting to manipulate inanimate objects does not change human behavior.

How's that "War on drugs" going?

 

It's not a NATIONAL problem when the U.S. borders a country like Mexico. Illegal drugs flow across the open southern border and so will banned weapons.

 

And there you have it, dear readers...no logical, factual or rational position to support supposed position of the OP and has been reduced to childish mocking and repetition of a feigning ignorance. He's done.

 

The 2A protects Citizens rights to own firearms. All firearms including military rifels. Any infringement on that right is in direct contrast to the Constitution, which is the Supreme Law of the Land.

 

You can repeat yourself ad nausea, because your claim is based on a myopic viewpoint that ignores the reality....the weapons I refer to were NOT the modified ones used to skirt the original law. they were obtained by numerous shooters up-to-date AFTER the sunset of the 1994 AWB. A matter of fact, a matter of history that does not require your belief. PURCHASE OF THE WEAPONS USED WERE NOT "GRANDFATHERED" WEAPONS. If you can prove such, then do so without speculation or personal opinion. If not, then don't waste my time with smoke blowing.

 

military as in militia? If that's the case then you definitely don't have the right to whatever gun you want, as weapons were regulated even in colonial times. Once again, you fail to substitute your personal opinion for facts and the logic derived from those facts.

 

As the reader can see, when faced with fact supported logic, Grau suddenly forgets his own condescending posts, feigns insults, and then repeats the sheer stupidity of separating the use of guns in crimes by people by babbling about "inanimate objects". And in typical fashion, he then tries to change the subject (which was started by Nixon, don't cha know). In short, Grau is wrong and just can't cop to it. He'll repeat himself with added new dodges. Carry on.

 

For your education: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Pipeline

 

I rest my case!

 

I and many others have refuted your ridiculous arguments many times but you refuse to accept it.

It's not worth my time or energy to argue with someone who doesn't know a damn thing about guns and the constitution.