the Constitution under assault and they will never stop

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by CJ7

as long as you keep trading replies with IB nothing he comes up with will have anything to do with anything you post... saying nothing is his forte'

You're an ignorant, butt-hurt SOB pissing and whining in every thread today, CBJ7.

Originally Posted by timpage

Same. The entire premise is absurd but it gives the whackjobs something else to bleat about in regard to the government. Fear, prejudice, hatred.....it's how propaganda works.

How is it "propaganda" to take a Branford police officer, identified as Joseph Peterson, at his word when he reportedly told a citizen: "I give my left nut to bang down your door and come for your gun," Little Tommy-tard?

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Criminals that intend to use guns in an illegal manner do not apply for CHLs, Speedy, but they carry and use guns anyway.

WOW!! You are being dense. This whole thread has been about the inability of private citizens in the state of N.J.. to obtain CHLs. No talk about criminals and their intentions. Talk about deflecting!! I have chosen not to carry a gun to protect myself against criminals. May be a mistake at some point but that is my choice. As you and others have said, criminals who want to do so will carry guns no matter what the law says. But I do want protection for myself from law-abiding citizens who deem it necessary to carry a gun. I don't want them carrying their guns in my home. I don't want them carrying guns in my place of work. If I were still a college student, I wouldn't want them carrying guns into school buildings and dormitories. There are laws in place that protect me in these cases. I also want laws in place that put minimum restrictions on those that want to carry concealed handguns, unlike the states of Utah and Wyoming. Simple enough to understand??

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

WOW!! You are being dense. I have chosen not to carry a gun to protect myself against criminals. May be a mistake at some point but that is my choice. As you and others have said, criminals who want to do so will carry guns no matter what the law says. But I do want protection for myself from law-abiding citizens who deem it necessary to carry a gun. I don't want them carrying their guns in my home. I don't want them carrying guns in my place of work. If I were still a college student, I wouldn't want them carrying guns into school buildings and dormitories. There are laws in place that protect me in these cases. I also want laws in place that put minimum restrictions on those that want to carry concealed handguns, unlike the states of Utah and Wyoming. Simple enough to understand??

Your "laws" are not going to stop the criminal element, Speedy. What part of that fundamental truth do you not understand, Speedy? Laws prohibiting murder, have not ended murder, Speedy. Laws forbidding rape, have not ended rape, Speedy. Laws forbidding theft, have not ended theft, Speedy. The current Chicago laws prohibiting guns in Chicago have not ended gun-crimes in Chicago, Speedy.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Your "laws" are not going to stop the criminal element, Speedy. What part of that fundamental truth do you not understand, Speedy? Laws prohibiting murder, have not ended murder, Speedy. Laws forbidding rape, have not ended rape, Speedy. Laws forbidding theft, have not ended theft, Speedy. The current Chicago laws prohibiting guns in Chicago have not ended gun-crimes in Chicago, Speedy.

You are talking apples and I am talking oranges. Unfortunately for you, this thread is about oranges.

Would you PLEASE read my posts and the posts of other and make any feeble attempt to understand what this whole thread is about. There is an attempt by the NRA (and the AG of Wyoming) to at the least overturn the CHL requirements in the state of N.J., believing they are too strict. At the most, they want the requirements to have a CHL in order to carry a concealed handgun done away with totally in the U.S. I have absolutely no problem with anyone who deems it necessary to carry a concealed handgun to do so AS LONG AS THEY HAVE A CHL AND HAVE MET MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS.

So please STOP talking about how criminals aren't going to be stopped by laws from murdering, raping, and robbing. We all know that. I simply want as much protection as possible from ANYONE carrying a handgun, while knowing full well that criminals are still going to be doing their thing.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You are talking apples and I am talking oranges. Unfortunately for you, this thread is about oranges.

Would you PLEASE read my posts and the posts of other and make any feeble attempt to understand what this whole thread is about. There is an attempt by the NRA (and the AG of Wyoming) to at the least overturn the CHL requirements in the state of N.J., believing they are too strict. At the most, they want the requirements to have a CHL in order to carry a concealed handgun done away with totally in the U.S. I have absolutely no problem with anyone who deems it necessary to carry a concealed handgun to do so AS LONG AS THEY HAVE A CHL AND HAVE MET MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS.

So please STOP talking about how criminals aren't going to be stopped by laws from murdering, raping, and robbing. We all know that. I simply want as much protection as possible from ANYONE carrying a handgun, while knowing full well that criminals are still going to be doing their thing.

You're a seriously deluded individual if you believe that the words in an anti-gun bill are going to protect you from those who would do you harm with a gun, Speedy.

[JCM800]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Would you PLEASE read my posts and the posts of other and make any feeble attempt to understand what this whole thread is about.

That's asking a lot from IB.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You're a seriously deluded individual if you believe that the words in an anti-gun bill are going to protect you from those who would do you harm with a gun, Speedy.

The law that allows me to keep guns out of my home has worked very well so far. The law that allows my place of business to keep guns out of the establishment has worked very well so far. You do realize that the majority of handguns in homes are used to kill someone else in the home rather than to kill someone in the act of committing a crime.

From
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-kellermann.htm

Keeping a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one, according to a study by Arthur Kellermann. The National Rifle Association has fiercely attacked this study, but it remains valid despite its criticisms. The study found that people are 21 times more likely to be killed by someone they know than a stranger breaking into the house.

Will requiring a person who wants a CHL to meet minimum requirements in order to carry a concealed handgun help me? There is absolutely no way it can hurt me.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

The law that allows me to keep guns out of my home has worked very well so far. The law that allows my place of business to keep guns out of the establishment has worked very well so far. You do realize that the majority of handguns in homes are used to kill someone else in the home rather than to kill someone in the act of committing a crime.

From
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-kellermann.htm

Keeping a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one, according to a study by Arthur Kellermann. The National Rifle Association has fiercely attacked this study, but it remains valid despite its criticisms. The study found that people are 21 times more likely to be killed by someone they know than a stranger breaking into the house.

Will requiring a person who wants a CHL to meet minimum requirements in order to carry a concealed handgun help me? There is absolutely no way it can hurt me.

The more you and your ilk seek to impose hardships, restrictions and costs on my use of personal property I've responsibly owned and used for nigh on fifty years, the less concerned and the more apathetic I become to your and your ilk's notions that you are "uncomfortable" with my Constitutional right to own and use a gun.

Originally Posted by JCM800

That's asking a lot from IB.

I read and understood the OP very well, did you 1-800-JCM-DATO: the lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM's soiled breechclout? It was about a police officer threatening a citizen, 1-800-JCM-DATO: the lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM's soiled breechclout. I read and understood Connecticut's Public Act 13-220, did you, 1-800-JCM-DATO: the lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM's soiled breechclout? I read and understood Connecticut's threatening directive to gun owners, did you, 1-800-JCM-DATO: the lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM's soiled breechclout? Until you do so, 1-800-JCM-DATO: the lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM's soiled breechclout, you'd do well to STFU, you ignorant dullard.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The more you and your ilk seek to impose hardships, restrictions and costs on my use of personal property I've responsibly owned and used for nigh on fifty years, the less concerned and the more apathetic I become to your and your ilk's notions that you are "uncomfortable" with my Constitutional right to own and use a gun.

I have as much a right to feel safe as you do. Coming from someone like you, I consider being called an "ilk" a compliment. To put it simply, you are a bitter, old man who is physically incompetent and hoards guns to make himself feel "better" than others.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I have as much a right to feel safe as you do. Coming from someone like you, I consider being called an "ilk" a compliment. To put it simply, you are a bitter, old man who is physically incompetent and hoards guns to make himself feel "better" than others.

Collecting historic memorabilia -- including guns -- is a hobby, Speedy. That you and your loathsome, wimpy, insecure ilk want to make that hobby more difficult and/or illegal ex post facto is very irksome.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Collecting historic memorabilia -- including guns -- is a hobby, Speedy. That you and your loathsome, wimpy, insecure ilk want to make that hobby more difficult and/or illegal ex post facto is very irksome.

Sometimes life is tough. I guess what is best for you is what we should all believe is best for everyone. Of course, I'm sure you will find one of my posts somewhere in which I state that any of your guns, whether historical or not, should be taken away.

[CJ7]

believe me yet Speedieboy ?


buy a gun and shoot IB, you'll never get the last or BEST word until you do

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by CJ7

believe me yet Speedieboy ?


buy a gun and shoot IB, you'll never get the last or BEST word until you do

A big LOL.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Sometimes life is tough. I guess what is best for you is what we should all believe is best for everyone. Of course, I'm sure you will find one of my posts somewhere in which I state that any of your guns, whether historical or not, should be taken away.

You've already admitted the criminal element will not abide by the laws you wish passed, Speedy; hence, you've admitted that your "enlightened" approach will will only burden those who are not breaking the laws and, therefore, are not best for anyone. You also admitted that you support Connecticut's actions; hence, you've endorsed confiscation, Speedy.

Originally Posted by CJ7

believe me yet Speedieboy ?

buy a gun and shoot IB, you'll never get the last or BEST word until you do

You're still butt-hurt, pissing and whining, CBJ7.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You've already admitted the criminal element will not abide by the laws you wish passed, Speedy; hence, you've admitted that your "enlightened" approach will will only burden those who are not breaking the laws and, therefore, are not best for anyone. You also admitted that you support Connecticut's actions; hence, you've endorsed confiscation, Speedy.


.

Connecticut??? I've never mentioned Connecticut. Try again.

My "enlightened approach" is currently supported by the overwhelming majority of the 50 states, so I would hardly refer to it as MY enlightened approach. A handful of states do not require a CHL in order to carry a concealed handgun. Get your facts straight for a change. In Texas, less than 3% of citizens 21 and older have a valid CHL. That leaves 97% of us who are either carrying concealed handguns illegally, don't want to invest the time/money to obtain a CHL, or, the largest group by far IMHO, those who don't really care about whether or not the ability to obtain a CHL exists. I firmly believe that the majority of the 97% want people obtaining CHLs to be qualified by a certified course of instruction. I'm sorry that such a "burden" is placed on those such as yourself that would pass a CHL course without having to attend it, but most times laws are made for the majority and not the minority