Recent comments in /f/Connecticut

Pruedrive t1_j93m4fm wrote

Reply to In the newest Puss in Boots movie a character mentions Lyme disease, which is named after the town of Lyme. This implies Connecticut exists in the Shrek universe. by ThatsALotOfOranges

Or.. since the characters in the Shrek universe are speaking in English.. making it able for us the viewers to understand what they are talking about, it’s just the closest translation of a similar disease that they have in their world.

I’ll see myself out..

−1

squirrell1974 t1_j93imo2 wrote

Reply to comment by AdHistorical7107 in here's a question regarding gun control by AdHistorical7107

>For starters, I'd use it to determine if I'm ok with my kid being at their house.

If you're questioning this at all, why would you even consider allowing your child in their house? Firearms aren't the only damaging thing people have access to. Many people do serious damage with no weapon other than what they were born with.

If you think your child would be injured, either physically or emotionally, by exposure to this person, allowing them to go to that person's home is negligence on your part regardless of whether or not they legally own a firearm.

6

MaxHound22 t1_j93f6z2 wrote

Reply to here's a question regarding gun control by AdHistorical7107

I’d agree with most of the previously stated reasons why making this information public is a bad idea, so I won’t rehash them. But I’ll add a few points. Gun permit holders are statistically less likely to break the law then police. So if you’re concerned with safety in general, there shouldn’t be much of a concern there. Also, you’re proposing making lists of citizens for exercising a right. Which other rights should we make lists on out of our personal fears? Are people who don’t answer police questions probably guilty of something? Are they dangerous? Shouldn’t the public know that guy down the street wouldn’t answer questions without a lawyer, he’s probably guilty of something, we should blacklist him. And I’d also still say you have no valid reason to know this information. It doesn’t tell you if the person has a weapon. If you honestly think they’re dangerous your simple answer is you don’t let your kid play there. There will be knives, hammers, scissors, baseball bats, any number of other weapons. Why would you ever let your kid go alone to a deranged persons home? It’s ok, they just have knives and bats so I’ll let my kid hang out over there? No, you wouldn’t. There’s no reason for that information to be public, but many reasons for it to remain confidential. If you think they’re dangerous, report them, and continue to report them each time they do something indicative of a threat, then let the professionals do their work, they have the information, and in this state they have the red flag laws to do what they need to.

3

Environmental_Log344 t1_j93b130 wrote

Reply to comment by ZebraRaptor in here's a question regarding gun control by AdHistorical7107

I can dream, can't I? Lol. The constitution gives us rights. I don't have to agree with all of it, just respect it. I can't change things that are written there. But I sure wish we could do away with the huge number of available firearms. Use them for hunting, no problem. How do you sort out the deer hunters from the human hunters? I have no idea how to plan or undertake this, nor does much of our government. They are letting it be for now but maybe my great grand kids will not see as many guns, or better yet, maybe firearms will be effectively banned by then. It's a tough issue. And I am going to vote in the direction of anything that reduces guns in irresponsible hands, if the issue is presented.

It's kind of snarky of you to assume I expect constitutional rights to be done away with at this point. Amendments could happen, but it's not likely. In the meantime, each opinion is valued.

Thank you for a thought -provoking bit of snark.

−1