www.vtfsc.com
Top lawmakers warn Gov. Scott against signing S.55 gun control bill
On Tuesday, top lawmakers met in the Cedar Creek Room at the Statehouse to urge Gov. Phil Scott to veto controversial S.55 gun legislation and sign less objectionable gun bills instead.
www.truenorthreports.com
digital.vpr.net
The bill expands background checks, raises the age to buy a gun to 21, and bans large-capacity magazines and bump stocks.
ReplyDeleteI AM FOR IT!!!
so let's raise the age to 21,to vote,to have to sign up for the draft,to be able to join the military,to get a drivers license,to pay taxes,to buy a cell phone
DeleteBut, but, but it takes my guns away! Oops, it doesn't, does it?
ReplyDeleteAnd there's the problem with this issue, and so many others. BOTH sides exaggerating, conflating, and outright lying. No, this legislation will not stop violence, and no, it doesn't take people's guns away. Just another "feel good" distraction that pits one group of citizens against another, while the political elites rake us over the coals. The real problem is the tribal polarization that causes the violence in the first place, and both parties are to blame!
ReplyDeleteOutstanding Comment Anonymous 11:39
DeleteAnd the mental health issues that reduce some individuals from being able to cope and control their feelings and actions whether it be over cultural anger, family abuse, bullying, etc. Mental health is such a big component to this. You never hear of the really happy, well adjusted, kid committing a school shooting. They have all been through some emotional trauma.
DeleteHaving said that, the problem with mental health issues is the individual has to be willing to admit they have an issue and seek help. We are a long way away from creating a culture that does not stigmatize mental health and encourages individuals to reach out.
Expanded back ground checks?! In many of these mass shootings the government has had extensive background checks in place to purchase any firearm! With the exception of a muzzle loader. Virginia Tech shooter: Under psychiatric care for fear of harming himself or others! Banned Purchased A FIREARM! Las Vegas shooter: Aggravated domestic assault, court martialed, dishonorably discharged from the Navy! Banned! Purchased many, many firearms! Sandy Hook. Stolen firearm!! Florida: the latest whack attack! Local police notified dozen of times warning them of what he was going to do!! FBI also notified of and warned of what this kid was going to do!! Is there a liberal alive that sees the connection here. It is really ignorant to blame a piece of wood and steel! We already have back ground checks! So why does the killing continue?! Ineptitude by law inforsement failing to do their job! And TEN ROUND MAGAZINES?!?! This in itself is a disaster! A joke! A very sad joke at that! IT DOES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to protect OUR children!! TEN ROUNDS?!?! How!! Tell me how this is a good thing! Now, you can go to war, die in a war at the age of 17!! We'd do better to raise the age to get a drivers license to the age of 21! More kids die texting while driving than die in these psychopathic attacks! Many of these new gun laws are just a feel good do nothing laws! Our friends on the left actually believe they are doing something to stop gun violence when they are making it worse! Protect....Defend They haven't a clue what either word means!!!!
ReplyDeleteRoy Another outstanding comment, the laws are feel good laws to make a certain class feel like they are doing something. It take the entire country to get on the same page. When this Country was founded they all had the same set of goals. I don't see a fix with the way the Liberals are taking our country so far away from those goals and the mind set that our Country was founded on. We have to some how get back to that or Split and have a Right Coast and a left Coast, let the Liberals have California and all move there. Don't let VT become that way, although with many of the Socialist that live here, this may be the start.
DeleteSorry, Roger. The solution to polarization is NOT everybody becoming conservative. Or liberal, for that matter. What you're saying is EXACTLY the kind the tribal polarization that I referred to. BOTH sides saying that they are always right, and the other side is always wrong. This despite the fact that the majority of Americans are neither liberal nor conservative, but somewhere in the middle. The political discourse in this country has deteriorated into nothing more than two groups of idealogues on a power trip, with neither side willing to acknowledge the rights of others. By the way, given that Trump has only a 26% approval rating here, and 74% of the state voted for Obama in 2012, I'd say Vermont is already "that way."
Deletewell said Roy
ReplyDeleteVoters need to understand, needless and unwarranted erosion of rights effects all of us. This is knee jerk legislation to pacify media crazed, ignorant, soccer moms. Purely an election year, political ploy. No one is any safer.
ReplyDeleteVermont buried 124 residents due to opiates last year. Yet no deaths or assault were committed with high capacity mags or a bump stock. Worse, Vermont releases opiate dealers on personal recognizance to continue prey on vulnerable addicts.!!! Ask yourself, what is the motivation if this solves nothing? Why was it ramrodded thru without public hearings?
There is a distinct reason mass genocide exists around the world in lieu of firearms. Yet nearly all are tied to a common thread that bump stocks and 20 round mags play no role in.
Watched an old (1970 era) western movie last night. All the men wore six shooters and most of the women had a small pistol hidden on them. In one scene a couple of the men had to take off there gun belts and lay them on the ground. After they were found out to be the good guys they were permitted to put them back on. When they weren't wearing them they acted like teenagers without their smartphone. Naked. Is this what this country needs to revert to? Wearing six guns on a belt laced with bullets?
ReplyDeleteDon't believe everything you see on television, or the internet either. Get educated, not indoctrinated!
DeleteHow does the passage of this law affect any of you personally? For example, do you really need to use 15 bullets to take down a deer or a home intruder?
ReplyDeleteMaybe, especially if there's more than one intruder. If they are armed, and have large-cap magazines, it may take MORE than 15. It's not always like in the movies, where the "bad guy" gets shot and immediately falls down and dies. Sometimes they keep shooting! Better to have them and not need them, than to need them and not have them. Most 9mm and .40 caliber semi-autos are capable of holding 15 rounds, by design. The whole idea behind 10 round capacities is to allow someone to attack and subdue the gunman while he reloads, after only 10 rounds. Would you have the presence of mind, or the guts, in a situation like that? Most people wouldn't. With a little practice, it takes very little time to change mags anyway. Very likely you wouldn't make it to the gunman in time, making YOU his next target!
DeleteOf course it does not affect us Chuck. Your liberal/socialist/communist utopia has driven almost all retail in this part of the state to New Hampshire. Where in Springfield do you buy your high-capacity magazines?
DeleteDoes not matter if it effects us Personally, it's the point that they change our laws one dribble at a time to take away our freedoms, as Roy above stated, its a feel good law change. And it's not only on the Governor, it's on the house and senate as well. Taking Baby steps to take away the guns of law abiding citizens is where it's headed.
DeleteSo, nobody out there has ever been in a situation where they thought, "Geez, right now I could use a 15-round clip!"? Fantasy is nice, but reality is where the work is, guys....
ReplyDeleteWell Chuck, if someone needed one and didn't have it, they wouldn't be making blog posts, now would they? Speaking of fantasy, do you think that you'ld be able to take out a gunman while he loads his second ten round magazine? His third, or fourth? Without any weapon of your own? You must be one bad-ass individual! I don't think I'd try it, unless I had a gun! I've been in a few situations where I've had to defend myself with a firearm. I've never had to shoot anyone; the individuals confronting me were smart enough to back off! One time, there were five of them. All I had was a snub-nosed .38 with 5 shots, so yeah, I would have felt better with fifteen! I traded that gun for a 9mm that does!
DeleteWere you drunk in a bar parking lot with 5 other drunk aholes?
DeleteNo; stone sober, in the parking lot of my condo. I was coming home from work. I don't drink, or use drugs. So, who's the "ahole" now?
DeleteLocation, location, location
DeleteChuck, no one owes you, of all people, an explanation. Go back and troll Springfield Vermont Democrats FB page where you can pat each other on the back. Lost all respect here.
ReplyDeleteThank you, 10:20. You are the one person in a town of 9,000 who needed a big clip in a non-military situation. Any others out there among the 8,999 remaining? Or is this the black swan exception?
ReplyDeleteHumans have the lowest rate of intra-species violence, so we should expect there to be at least 270 others with similar stories. Since the local papers have not been reporting an average of one story per day about the need for a defensive weapon in a Springfield incident, I have a feeling that our own rate of intra-species violence doesn't make big clips a necessity.
The only incidents of intra-species violence with firearms in Springfield that I remember were John Clark, who committed suicide by cop (state troopers) some 30 years ago; one of the Spicer girls, blown away by her boy friend on Merrill Street, also some 30 years ago; Greasy Bob, who committed suicide outside his girl friend's house down in BF (but he was a Springfield kid) back around then; Lori whatshername's boyfriend who tried to commit suicide by cop up on Town Farm Road (they didn't take the bait, and he got to keep his guns); and whatshisface Searles who killed his kid in their Park Street apartment. Not exactly defending us against governmental tyranny, were they?
I'd say maybe we're too casual about who gets to own guns, but then I've had a lot of people carrying guns knock on my door, and I never had trouble with any of them.
Chuck, Wesley Wing is a recent one, and there's quite a few others. Not all involved deaths, but there were woundings and other shootings, and all are instances of violence. Local rates seem to have increased in recent years. Are you filtering data to fit your opinions here? That would be exactly not what's needed, whatever your opinions are.
DeleteWhat's your source for the low rate of human intra-species violence? My reading seems to emphasize exactly the opposite, many times over.
Philip, memory plays me true. We're at about 3.4-3.9%, way below most other vertebrates and primates: https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/these-mammals-are-just-straight-up-murdering-each-other-1787193652
DeleteChuck, that article extracts and focuses on one aspect of the study and gives a wrong impression. I don't choose to spend $200 dollars now to subscribe to Nature, so I failed to read the original study, but here's a different article about the same study that goes over it more thoroughly and includes some balanced evaluations. Note, we are not "way below other vertebrates and primates" - the study doesn't say that at all. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/09/humans-are-unusually-violent-mammals-but-averagely-violent-primates/501935/
DeleteYour assertion of humans having a low intra-species level of violence remains unsupported. And again, your statistics about violence in our own community are incomplete.
Philip, the writer quotes, :"They concluded that rates of lethal violence originally ranged from 3.4 to 3.9 percent during Paleolithic times, making us only slightly more violent than you’d expect for a primate of our evolutionary past." In the last paragraph the writer says that in human populations today, the violence rate is from 0 to 65%." I would suggest going through the past year's police reports to determine the violence rate in Springfield. If it's 3 percent, we can expect to find at least 200 reports of shootings, stabbings and fights involving a trip to the hospital. Just because we worry about violence doesn't mean it's happening. It might mean that we watch too much Fox News. Sorry I painted with too optimistic a brush in my initial comment!
DeletePhilip, don't worry about Chester Chuck's alternative facts. He has no idea what happens in this neighboring community, and certainly doesn't mind creating his own narrative… Troll!
ReplyDelete