Sad day in Connecticut- Registration Deadline Looms for Gun Owners

[Southpaw]

Thanks, I was looking for that.


Curious, what would happen if there was registration en masse, by people from all over the country with *inventive* personal and weapons information? Just kind of thinking of crashing the system like O'cares.

Could you be charged with falsifying a state document or something similar? Not that they'd pursue charges if they were inundated.

I'll start with filling each magazine I have individually.. that ought to keep em busy.

 

[mitchntx]

There's a high capacity joke in there somewhere ... LOL

I was thinking squib but ....

 

[mosin]

I don't get why people in Connecticut just roll over. Unbelievable.

Because its a bunch of huntin fudds and socialists. Beautiful land but that's all the positive I gotta say about it.

 

[pistolpadre]

F'em...........F'em all. Stupid C*ck sucking, ball licking, faggot commies.

stop holding this stuff in Dusty.. get in touch with your feelings bro.. smiling, but what a sad way to start the new year.

in edit.. first time i've tried a quote for while, SO glad it worked for Dusty's comments..

 

[ROGER4314]

History shows us that registration is the first step toward confiscation. EVERY dictator and tyrant in history began with confiscation of personal weapons!

The bottom line here is that once the damned items are registered................you be screwed! So....where is the best line of defense?

The next targeted weapon will be scoped rifles. I can hear the "Common Sense" Liberals crying "SNIPER RIFLES!" and "COP KILLER RIFLE ROUNDS" already!

Flash

 

[breakingcontact]

Im reading an article in Shotgun News about one of the few academic studies of gun control in Nazi Germany.

 

[Shooter McGavin]

From reading the comments posted at the bottom of the report posted, it would appear as though many residents are not very happy with the new law. Law suit pending, it'll be interesting to see how all this stakes out.

 

[Younggun]

The government can expand its class of criminals to whoever it wants. Didnt the Canadians just not comply with their gun registration en masse then the gov pulled it?

If you cant maintain or establish freedom where you are its time to fall back to a free state. I respect those that stay and fight but at some point you need to fall back and regroup.

I believe the law is still in place but has cost many time more than originally expected and the database is horrible incomplete due to people in rural areas (where most of the guns are) not complying. There was some talk of it being scrapped not too long ago but I don't know how far it got.

Canada has some strange gun laws compared to ours as to what is/isn't legal.

I found it interesting that according to them, an AR15 or semi auto UZI is a "machine gun". Basically were successful in doing what libs here are trying to do by calling a bunch of guns "machine guns" until people believed that they are.

 

[mitchntx]

How many registrations were received vs estimated numbers of weapons affected?

 

[stdreb27]

I believe the law is still in place but has cost many time more than originally expected and the database is horrible incomplete due to people in rural areas (where most of the guns are) not complying. There was some talk of it being scrapped not too long ago but I don't know how far it got.

Canada has some strange gun laws compared to ours as to what is/isn't legal.

I found it interesting that according to them, an AR15 or semi auto UZI is a "machine gun". Basically were successful in doing what libs here are trying to do by calling a bunch of guns "machine guns" until people believed that they are.

It's the same company that's doing the obamacare website.

 

[Mreed911]

F'em...........F'em all. Stupid C*ck sucking, ball licking, faggot commies.

Well, at least 28% of the state, give or take.

Assume that of the 3.6 million people in Connecticut that 2.7 million are eligible voters. 1.5 million voted in the election, or 55% of eligible voters, meaning that at least 28% of Connecticut residents voiced support through a vote for the politicians that passed this bill and 45% failed to give their voice a vote.

Then again, I don't understand what would make a democratic "scared housewife" who supported this into a lesbian who wanted the country to own the means of production (though I think I can support that demographic being "ball-lickers" more or less), but I'm obviously not a student of politics to the degree you are.

My point? Inflammatory rhetoric only makes them feel more righteous because of the response it's causing you to evoke, and only makes your position look distasteful to those who would support it if they didn't have to be associated with someone screaming about "faggot, ball-licker communists" to do so. Nevermind the ball-licking faggots (and twat-licking lesbians) who enjoy their second amendment rights... they're completely disenfranchised in your approach... which says you actually care more about what someone does with other people's genitals in private than you do your second amendment rights, and furthermore that since you care MORE about that, you'd likely be willing to sacrifice your own right to own guns in exchange for gay rights never coming into existence at all, but I digress...

If anything, hopefully this wakes up enough of the 45% of the population that couldn't be bothered to protect their rights from being infringed and they become more active and work the vote.

That is all.

 

[pistolpadre]

I'd be disingenuous if I didn't admit to getting a grin or two from your post.. you know of course that this was not 'in acted' through vote, and the percentage of peeps who voted for the elected officials has NO relationship to the support of the new law.. do you know what the law encompasses.. This is the bad stuff that is pretty much everyone's worst fear.. and..umm, your on a gun forum in favor of it..

You got some esplain'n to do here Lucy.. seriously are you down for you down for this.. I'd be putting on the dancing shoes bout node iif I were you..

 

[TX69]

I don't get why people in Connecticut just roll over. Unbelievable.

 

[Younggun]

How many registrations were received vs estimated numbers of weapons affected?

Found the info once, I will see if I can dig it up again.


Edit: did a quick google search and got this info between Forbes and gunpolicy.org. I will note info the came from which site.


Forbes; estimated cost of program: $2 million....actual cost: 1 Billion

Total number of guns in Canada (estimated): Forbes : 15 million

GunPolicy.org: 9.95 million

Number of guns registered:

Gun policy.org: 7.5 million

 

[dustycorgill]

Well, at least 28% of the state, give or take.

Assume that of the 3.6 million people in Connecticut that 2.7 million are eligible voters. 1.5 million voted in the election, or 55% of eligible voters, meaning that at least 28% of Connecticut residents voiced support through a vote for the politicians that passed this bill and 45% failed to give their voice a vote.

Then again, I don't understand what would make a democratic "scared housewife" who supported this into a lesbian who wanted the country to own the means of production (though I think I can support that demographic being "ball-lickers" more or less), but I'm obviously not a student of politics to the degree you are.

My point? Inflammatory rhetoric only makes them feel more righteous because of the response it's causing you to evoke, and only makes your position look distasteful to those who would support it if they didn't have to be associated with someone screaming about "faggot, ball-licker communists" to do so. Nevermind the ball-licking faggots (and $#@!-licking lesbians) who enjoy their second amendment rights... they're completely disenfranchised in your approach... which says you actually care more about what someone does with other people's genitals in private than you do your second amendment rights, and furthermore that since you care MORE about that, you'd likely be willing to sacrifice your own right to own guns in exchange for gay rights never coming into existence at all, but I digress...

If anything, hopefully this wakes up enough of the 45% of the population that couldn't be bothered to protect their rights from being infringed and they become more active and work the vote.

That is all.

Just to clear this up...........I am not speaking of the "residents" of Connecticut. I am speaking of the lawmakers who think they are holier than though, and above the "common people" in the state. You know, the ones that rammed it down the residents throats even though there was much resistance and outcry from the people about the lawmakers doing as THEY wished and going against what the people wanted. You call those lawmakers what you want, and I will continue to call them what they are.

 

[oldguy]

I do not purchase anything from states who take this action, does it help, not sure but it's my way of protesting. Consumers hold the key to changing many of the problems that face Americans. Companies in Connecticut won't receive another buck from me.

 

[Mreed911]

You got some esplain'n to do here Lucy.. seriously are you down for you down for this.. I'd be putting on the dancing shoes bout node iif I were you..

Definitely not down for it. I consider it as constitutionally illegal as the schemes in Chicago, New York and DC. The problem is that people don't understand the value or purpose of the constitution anymore, they defer to "the law" instead, thinking that if it's the law then it's the law and that folks who speak up about constitutionality are just trying to hamper "the law." We actually advance that notion, however, that the focus is on "the law" vs. "the constitutionality of a law" when we speak in terms that support one set of rights but disparage others.

I'm not gay. My religious beliefs have been based on a set of principles that held homosexuality as sinful, but my studies on this seem to indicate that that's not really the case (there's another whole thread on the linguistics of this, etc. to be had... but not here), but even if continued to believe it sinful the constitution protects both my choice and other's choice of religion as a right, including the right not to be religious or to believe differently than I do - even markedly so. So, from a constitutional perspective, how can I disparage (through act or word) the rights of one group while asking that mine be preserved and protected when those rights come from simply being human and are reinforced in the language of our constitution? Even more, why would I push away groups (like the Pink Pistols) that are willing to stand beside my and advocate my position?

I don't have to like it. I don't even have to agree with it. I just have to understand that constitutionally, all rights are equal. All of them.

On to the vote... while this wasn't strictly passed by the voters, it was passed by the people they voted in. Again, there's another long thread here on voter apathy, but the problem is that people don't vote. Now maybe we could argue that the folks that didn't vote would vote against us, etc., but the case remains that most people do very little to influence their local politics and local elected officials which is where things start. The great thing here, though, is that the right voter upswing could get people elected that repeal this or any other law... if it's what the people of Connecticut want. I personally don't see that as an appropriate endgame here, though, because I do believe this law to be unconstitutional, but I believe it will stand as much as the egregious bans and limits in California have... unchecked... until the Supreme Court finally hears the right argument to strike this down and has the right judges on it to uphold their oath to Constitution first, country second.

Are my feet on fire from dancing yet?

 

[breakingcontact]

Just to clear this up...........I am not speaking of the "residents" of Connecticut. I am speaking of the lawmakers who think they are holier than though, and above the "common people" in the state. You know, the ones that rammed it down the residents throats even though there was much resistance and outcry from the people about the lawmakers doing as THEY wished and going against what the people wanted. You call those lawmakers what you want, and I will continue to call them what they are.

Another word for them, just one word...criminals.

 

[dustycorgill]

Another word for them, just one word...criminals.

Totally agree buddy. You're so much nicer than me though, lol.

 

[pistolpadre]

Mreed.. my tablet makes 'quote' impossble, (afraid that one of mine you chose to use is QUITE enough) but if i were to quote it would be the part of your comments dealing with the people not actually responsible for the law.. in other words it was simply a knee jerk reaction to Sandy Hook..

CA passed prop eight, by the citizens, only to have it over turned by the judicial branch.. an equal opportunity wrong in my book.. for the record I agree homosexuality is less choice than being hard wired, but that still doesn't justify social experiments..

So are you advocating forced registration , ( while you still have those dancing shoes on, lol)