President Obama declared Saturday that “We’re going to have to come together to take meaningful action” — though he did not provide details. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said that when Congress returns she will introduce a bill to restore the assault weapons ban. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on Face the Nation Sunday that “we could be at a tipping point” on gun control legislation.
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
Gun control did wonders in DC and Chicago.
ReplyDeleteSo why dont we rewrite the constitution . So it benifits what the gov wants it to.stricker gun laws thats what they come up with.no security in schools.ok highjack a plain and you its body cavity search.shoot up a school and its the guns fault.maybe we should up security im shore the service men and women that are out of service would not mind watching our children.come on!!
ReplyDeleteGun control did wonders in DC and Chicago.
ReplyDeleteDecember 18, 2012 4:03 PM
Ain't that the truth.
I wonder how different Obama would feel if we took the guns away from the Secret Service.
ReplyDeleteFrom my cold dead fingers.
ReplyDeleteConnecticut HAS a ban on assault weapons! It did nothing to stop the shooting.
ReplyDeleteA nationwide ban on assault weapons is needed. Who can justify having an assault weapon for hunting or home protection?
ReplyDeleteI agree totally to disarming the Secret Service and Security around Obama...hmm I wonder if HOME-BOY would want that so he cannot protect himself.
ReplyDelete4:34 If states surrounding Conn. allow assault rifles, that's the problem. A nationwide ban is needed.
ReplyDelete5:19 Assault rifles arn't usually purchased to protect a home from intruders but rather to protect our selfs from government.
ReplyDelete"Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteA nationwide ban on assault weapons is needed. Who can justify having an assault weapon for hunting or home protection?
December 18, 2012 5:19 PM"
What would be accomplished other than less victims? Is an inner city infant's life taken at the hands of an abuser who killed them by smashing their skulls any less important than the CT victims?
It's not a gun problem-it's a cultural problem. Is society going to suddenly become peaceful and murder will stop if firearms aren't available?
It's putting a bandaid on a problem that goes much deeper. They've been putting these types of bandaids on this problem for years and the violence is only getting worse. That's what you call a clue. The current remedies are not working. Guns have been a part of this countries history since it's inception. Why now do we have the problem of school and mass shootings? That's another clue and the conclusing is something is drastically wrong with society.
Any prudent person knows what it is though some refuse to admit it. Society's run amok-anything goes anymore. No morals and no principles. Kids having and raising babies. Irresponsiblity. Drugs. Violence glorifying movies, music, video games.
6:28, do you really think these weapons would protect you if the government was actually trying to get you?
ReplyDelete5:19 says it all no no no no do not let the tyrants and marxist get the guns we would be doomed...the sole reason for 2nd amendment is to be able to fight against tyranny not hunting. Do you people not see what we are up against...
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone know if there have been any updates regarding the ease of restrictions for the concealed weapons permit application?
ReplyDelete"Who can justify having an assault weapon for hunting or home protection?" Hunting, no. Home protection, why not? Those who would violate your home certainly have access to 'assault weapons'. And it has been proven that they will continue to have the same access after any new gun laws are put in place. Who the hell are you to say that I can not have the same level of defense as the criminal?
ReplyDeleteassault weapons, do you liberals even know what they are? class 3 are the fully automatic ones, the ones we dont need to have i agree, BUT that is NOT what they are really talking about, they want to ban any weapon that is SEMI auto or for you IDIOTS, a gun where you have to pull the trigger to fire, its no dern different than a revolver, just holds more bullets IN SOME STATES. in MD you CANT buy a clip over 20 rounds. "ASSAULT" is so Misconstrued. assault is for the army. an AR15 is no different than a ruger 22 caliber, its just just stuff to make it look tough, not a DAMN bit difference, you need again to EDUCATE yourself instead of listening to the news. jeez
ReplyDeletedo not let this tyranical government take away any guns. government is the problem; not the answer to anything. never trust government. they do Not have our interest at heart. they want us to be totally subserviant and dependent on them and then they will have total control. not what our founders gave us.
ReplyDelete6:46...sounds a lot like what King George said to his advisors when he was told there was an "uprising" in the American colonies --- Do these louts think they can stop the British army? Fools!" Remember this --- the government can muster EVERY cop, agent, military member and National Guard soldier and CITIZENS with firepower will outnumber them by MILLIONS. Thats a fight they don't want. Rightfully so. I bet you sleep with a night light on.....
ReplyDeleteWhen the Government and criminals are disarmed, I'll gladly give up my firearms.
ReplyDeleteA world of difference. .22 Long Rifle is a low velocity, rimfire round. When a .22 LR round strikes a target, damage caused by the round will be limited to the crush cavity (damage caused by the round itself).
ReplyDeleteThe .223, although having a projectile with the same diameter, is a much different cartridge. It's a high velocity centrefire cartridge, with a much heavier spitzer type projectile moving at a much higher velocity. Damage caused by this cartridge also includes hydrostatic pressure, which is caused by air displacement around the projectile.