Connecticut- 1st State to Overrule Constitutional Rights (Gun laws, Ebola)

So now Connecticut (which doesn't even have any cases of ebola) is declaring that they can quarantine people with symptoms of ebola.

I also reflect back to after Sandy Hook, how Connecticut enforced all of these gun laws (particularly on magazine capacity and restricting features that are legal on models of rifles like the AR-15), which caused an uproar in the 2nd Amendment proponents, especially gun-owners in CT.

I'm just curious if there is a correlation relating this state and the goals/incentives of the larger Federal Government. Is it easier to enforce pilot programs like these in CT due to the size/certain political elements of Connecticut? What are your thoughts on this?

MODS: Feel free to move to another forum

a reply to: FamCore

On the Ebola issue this is just common sense. Even Typhoid Mary would have approved.

originally posted by: Aleister
a reply to: FamCore

On the Ebola issue this is just common sense. Even Typhoid Mary would have approved.

I agree, it is common sense to have additional precautions and government involvement with issues of security like this, but I'm wondering why CT is the first state to do this - instead of any states closer to the Texas or the borders, especially with the immigration crisis going on. The gun laws- perhaps it made sense being that Sandy Hook was in CT however the Sandy Hook questions constitute a whole different story/mystery so I'm not going into that

a reply to: [Aleister]

Connecticut just seems ripe for test-run Martial Law/National Security Emergencies, and the government response to issues is oh so quick!

Just trying to see if anybody thinks there could be reasons as to how Connecticut could be more susceptible to Federal Gov pilot programs /

Funny how such a liberal state would protect its borders from disease but is not so worried about the countries southern border.

Funny how there seems to be little to NO response by the government in general, as a result of the immigration crisis. But that again is a whole different topic... (another one that gets my blood boiling :mad a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

Not to be too stereotypical but CT has it's fair share of NIMBY's.....West Chester & the Hamptons come to mind?
Altho it's more evidence that if the feds won't act with some common sense, the states will have to step up to the plate.

CT is essentially the perfect microcosm for America. There are rural areas with focus on farming. There are suburbs with lots of money. There are cities with crushing poverty and other urban issues. Democrats dominate the population but the very vocal moneyed Republicans have disproportionate power. The population is very diverse as well but very homogenous in localities.

I'd be happy to illuminate the state if anyone has questions.

I think that under no circumstances should Constitutional rights be changed by an individual state. Quarantining an individual with Ebola however requires no violation of Constitutional rights that are not already in place. We already have a system for removing certain individuals from society, as we have mental institutions, prisons, etc., and it would not take much imagination to see how this could be used for an Ebola victim. The 2nd amendment violations are also ridiculous. What is essentially occurring is that the government is using to their advantage the outrage and grief of the local population to violate Constitutional rights, and to get away with it. Those overcome by emotion do not reason properly, and the most outspoken are always those with the agenda.

Well-put. Just look at Hillary Clinton with her anti-2nd amendment talks. Let us PRAY she doesn't become the next POTUS Who knows what else she may have up her sleeve (#PUKE) a reply to: JiggyPotamus

a reply to: FamCore

Hilary is guaranteed to win the way things stand now. She'll make Reagan, Bush, and Obama look like children. She actually understands the whole system inside and out and has more connections than almost any politician out there.