If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Russia Today)   Connecticut has created tens of thousands of newly minted criminals, because some residents are refusing to register guns under a new law enacted after the Sandy Hook School shooting   (rt.com) divider line 441
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

4754 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Feb 2014 at 3:03 AM (44 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



441 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-13 12:15:44 AM  
At least some people stayed awake in history class.
 
2014-02-13 12:51:22 AM  
The best course of action at this point would probably be a public awareness campaign combined with an extension of the registration time limits (with a fine for doing so late).  Run ads listing the characteristics of the weapons that fall under the law, let them know that they have until July 1st to register them and pay a minor fine with no criminal penalty, and that if they're caught with an unregistered weapon after that date they'll be charged with a felony.

Just register your dang guns people, the courts have been pretty clear that they're not going to let a law stand that allows the government to take them away.
 
2014-02-13 01:08:23 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Just register your dang guns people,


Right. Because the government would never use something like a gun registry to go door-to-door to confiscate guns.

Oh, wait...
 
2014-02-13 01:12:14 AM  

Pokey.Clyde: TuteTibiImperes: Just register your dang guns people,

Right. Because the government would never use something like a gun registry to go door-to-door to confiscate guns.

Oh, wait...


Given the circumstances at the time, the move made sense.  Let's not compare emergency measures in the middle of one of the worst natural disasters to ever face a city with a sunny Tuesday in CT though.
 
2014-02-13 01:17:12 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Pokey.Clyde: TuteTibiImperes: Just register your dang guns people,

Right. Because the government would never use something like a gun registry to go door-to-door to confiscate guns.

Oh, wait...

Given the circumstances at the time, the move made sense.  Let's not compare emergency measures in the middle of one of the worst natural disasters to ever face a city with a sunny Tuesday in CT though.


No, it didn't.

Given the circumstances, it was a stupid move.
 
2014-02-13 01:20:23 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Given the circumstances at the time, the move made sense.


No, it didn't. People, in neighborhoods not flooded, and with plenty of provisions had their means of protection illegally taken away from them. Twist all you want, but nothing will make it right, nor legal.
 
2014-02-13 01:21:21 AM  
These are not the people law enforcement should be targeting.
 
2014-02-13 01:39:19 AM  

Pokey.Clyde: TuteTibiImperes: Just register your dang guns people,

Right. Because the government would never use something like a gun registry to go door-to-door to confiscate guns.

Oh, wait...


How did the police know where the guns were?

i57.tinypic.com
 
2014-02-13 01:42:17 AM  

Pokey.Clyde: TuteTibiImperes: Given the circumstances at the time, the move made sense.

No, it didn't. People, in neighborhoods not flooded, and with plenty of provisions had their means of protection illegally taken away from them. Twist all you want, but nothing will make it right, nor legal.


When the rule of law had essentially broken down, it made sense to take measures to ensure that only those sworn and tasked to uphold the law would be armed.  I'll admit that care should have been taken to record which firearms were taken from each person and every effort made to return all legally possessed firearms to their rightful owners once things had settled down, but the initial idea to reduce violence by reducing the number of guns floating around was a good one.
 
2014-02-13 01:53:30 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Pokey.Clyde: TuteTibiImperes: Given the circumstances at the time, the move made sense.

No, it didn't. People, in neighborhoods not flooded, and with plenty of provisions had their means of protection illegally taken away from them. Twist all you want, but nothing will make it right, nor legal.

When the rule of law had essentially broken down, it made sense to take measures to ensure that only those sworn and tasked to uphold the law would be armed.  I'll admit that care should have been taken to record which firearms were taken from each person and every effort made to return all legally possessed firearms to their rightful owners once things had settled down, but the initial idea to reduce violence by reducing the number of guns floating around was a good one.


No, it wasn't. That's why there's specific language against it in the Constitution.
 
2014-02-13 02:05:07 AM  

fusillade762: How did the police know where the guns were?


I said something like a gun registry. And a list of people with carry permits is a list of people who own guns. Not as complete of a list as, say, a mandatory gun registry. But, nonetheless, a list of gun owners was used to illegally confiscate legally owned firearms.

TuteTibiImperes: When the rule of law had essentially broken down, it made sense to take measures to ensure that only those sworn and tasked to uphold the law would be armed.


No, it didn't. That is absolutely the worst time to be taking a legally owned firearm away from someone. Things have gone to shiat, and the government thinks it's a bright idea to make it more difficult for me to defend my family and myself. Nope. Completely wrong.

TuteTibiImperes: but the initial idea to reduce violence by reducing the number of guns floating around was a good one.


No, it wasn't. You don't get to deprive someone of a constitutionally protected right because "maybe, these law-abiding citizens might shoot someone". Like I said, twist all you want, but nothing will make it right, nor legal.
 
2014-02-13 02:44:38 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Just register your dang guns people, the courts have been pretty clear that they're not going to let a law stand that allows the government to take them away.



1) Don't do it.

2) Tell that to gun owners in California who had their "assault weapon" SKS rifles taken away.
 
2014-02-13 02:49:00 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Pokey.Clyde: TuteTibiImperes: Given the circumstances at the time, the move made sense.

No, it didn't. People, in neighborhoods not flooded, and with plenty of provisions had their means of protection illegally taken away from them. Twist all you want, but nothing will make it right, nor legal.

When the rule of law had essentially broken down, it made sense to take measures to ensure that only those sworn and tasked to uphold the law would be armed.  I'll admit that care should have been taken to record which firearms were taken from each person and every effort made to return all legally possessed firearms to their rightful owners once things had settled down, but the initial idea to reduce violence by reducing the number of guns floating around was a good one.


Good God I hope you are trolling.  Way to give an advantage to looters.
 
2014-02-13 02:54:37 AM  

The_Sponge: TuteTibiImperes: Just register your dang guns people, the courts have been pretty clear that they're not going to let a law stand that allows the government to take them away.


1) Don't do it.

2) Tell that to gun owners in California who had their "assault weapon" SKS rifles taken away.


truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com

Was this ever proven fake, or is it still a perfect example of registration leading to later confiscation?
 
2014-02-13 03:07:55 AM  

Pokey.Clyde: I said something like a gun registry. And a list of people with carry permits is a list of people who own guns. Not as complete of a list as, say, a mandatory gun registry. But, nonetheless, a list of gun owners was used to illegally confiscate legally owned firearms.


img.fark.net

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-02-13 03:08:47 AM  
What people don't like to think about is that 'the government' already thinks everyone is a criminal.

What is a criminal you ask?  Someone who can have their rights, property and freedom taken away, legally.
 
2014-02-13 03:09:18 AM  

violentsalvation: The_Sponge: TuteTibiImperes: Just register your dang guns people, the courts have been pretty clear that they're not going to let a law stand that allows the government to take them away.


1) Don't do it.

2) Tell that to gun owners in California who had their "assault weapon" SKS rifles taken away.

[truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com image 537x615]

Was this ever proven fake, or is it still a perfect example of registration leading to later confiscation?


Isn't the burden of proof on the person claiming it to be true?   Because nowadays any jackass with minimal Photoshop skills can create an 'authentic' document

/points to his Masters of Photoshop degree on the wall
 
2014-02-13 03:11:44 AM  

violentsalvation: Was this ever proven fake, or is it still a perfect example of registration leading to later confiscation?



I have no idea....this is the first time I have seen that.
 
2014-02-13 03:16:15 AM  

The_Sponge: violentsalvation: Was this ever proven fake, or is it still a perfect example of registration leading to later confiscation?


I have no idea....this is the first time I have seen that.


Best article (term used loosely) I could find.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/05/nypd-targets-owners-multi-clip- sh otguns-rifles/

Sooo, maybe?
 
2014-02-13 03:17:38 AM  
I almost read a paragraph into this and then asked myself;"SELF! did a 9 year old write this?"
If you want me to take you seriously at least use your verbs correctly.
 
2014-02-13 03:19:04 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Just register your dang guns people, the courts have been pretty clear that they're not going to let a law stand that allows the government to take them away.


Um, exactly that hasn't only happened in the past, it's happened several different times in the past so it's a pattern and not one bad apple.  Registration laws being followed with (technically illegal) seizures or persecution of the property registered, that is.

This is actually a pretty legitimate thing to engage in passive resistance over, historically speaking.  Blatant violation of the second amendment tends to follow pretty inevitably.

// Which is why regulations are placed at the points of sale and not ownership in the first place.
 
2014-02-13 03:23:51 AM  

hardinparamedic: Pokey.Clyde: I said something like a gun registry. And a list of people with carry permits is a list of people who own guns. Not as complete of a list as, say, a mandatory gun registry. But, nonetheless, a list of gun owners was used to illegally confiscate legally owned firearms.

[img.fark.net image 326x463]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x163]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_government_response_to_Hur ri cane_Katrina#Confiscation_of_civilian_firearms
 
2014-02-13 03:24:43 AM  

Pokey.Clyde: TuteTibiImperes: Just register your dang guns people,

Right. Because the government would never use something like a gun registry to go door-to-door to confiscate guns.

Oh, wait...


In a city under martial law?

Yeah, totally unreasonable.
 
2014-02-13 03:25:06 AM  
And this is why when someone starts claiming in a gun control thread that "no one wants to take your firearms" I know they're a lying sack of shiat.
 
Poe
2014-02-13 03:25:29 AM  
I think the folks in CT experienced an onslaught of tragic boating accidents over the past year, resulting in the loss overboard of untold numbers of "assault weapons."
 
2014-02-13 03:27:18 AM  

Cyber_Junk: violentsalvation: The_Sponge: TuteTibiImperes: Just register your dang guns people, the courts have been pretty clear that they're not going to let a law stand that allows the government to take them away.


1) Don't do it.

2) Tell that to gun owners in California who had their "assault weapon" SKS rifles taken away.

[truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com image 537x615]

Was this ever proven fake, or is it still a perfect example of registration leading to later confiscation?

Isn't the burden of proof on the person claiming it to be true?   Because nowadays any jackass with minimal Photoshop skills can create an 'authentic' document

/points to his Masters of Photoshop degree on the wall


That should be the case, yes. But I've only seen it on a few sites, mostly pro-gun sites, it did make Fox News, not that that means much. It might be more telling that I can't find it debunked, and can't find it reported on a more left wing site. I'd think if it was fake, that since Fox picked it up mediamatters and MSNBC would be all over it.

But I don't know for a fact that it is real or not.
 
2014-02-13 03:28:00 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: "Pokey.Clyde: TuteTibiImperes: Given the circumstances at the time, the move made sense.

No, it didn't. People, in neighborhoods not flooded, and with plenty of provisions had their means of protection illegally taken away from them. Twist all you want, but nothing will make it right, nor legal.

When the rule of law had essentially broken down, it made sense to take measures to ensure that only those sworn and tasked to uphold the law would be armed."



When the rule of law had essentially broken down, those who had obtained firearms for self-defense in anticipation of the rule of law possibly breaking down -- and who had stayed behind rather than evacuating knowing that they were prepared to protect themselves if needed -- were forcibly deprived of their ability to protect their lives and property by the very people who were supposed to be doing it for them, but weren't. If ever there was a real-world scenario that illustrated EXACTLY what the 2nd Amendment is for, that was it.
 
2014-02-13 03:33:02 AM  
Considering that Connecticut's governor has repeatedly called for sweeping state and national bans on so-called assault weapons, I wouldn't trust the government with knowledge of my firearms.  California has already shown that gun registries can and will be used for confiscation, so why give Connecticut a chance to do the same thing?
 
2014-02-13 03:37:40 AM  

Jim_Callahan: TuteTibiImperes: Just register your dang guns people, the courts have been pretty clear that they're not going to let a law stand that allows the government to take them away.

Um, exactly that hasn't only happened in the past, it's happened several different times in the past so it's a pattern and not one bad apple.  Registration laws being followed with (technically illegal) seizures or persecution of the property registered, that is.

This is actually a pretty legitimate thing to engage in passive resistance over, historically speaking.  Blatant violation of the second amendment tends to follow pretty inevitably.

// Which is why regulations are placed at the points of sale and not ownership in the first place.


What was DC v. Heller about, then?
Oh, that's right, the Supreme Court ordered the city to allow him to register his handgun.

Mandatory registration is constitutional.
 
2014-02-13 03:44:00 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: the Supreme Court ordered the city to allow him to register his handgun.Mandatory registration is constitutional


Mandatory registration was not decided in that case, the issue the Supreme Court decided was whether D.C. could arbitrarily and repeatedly deny someone to use the registration they had set up to deny him a firearm for his own defense.

I thought you were smarter than that, court cases are always about the contested point alone. Both Heller and McDonald involved gun owners who wished to register their firearm, so that was an uncontested point.
 
2014-02-13 03:50:05 AM  

hardinparamedic: Pokey.Clyde: I said something like a gun registry. And a list of people with carry permits is a list of people who own guns. Not as complete of a list as, say, a mandatory gun registry. But, nonetheless, a list of gun owners was used to illegally confiscate legally owned firearms.

[img.fark.net image 326x463]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x163]


Maybe I should break it down for you?

Gun registry = list of people who own guns
Carry permit = you are on a list that says it is legal for you to carry a firearm, which means in all likelihood you own at least one firearm
Louisiana has no registry, but does issue carry permits.
Without some type of list, how would the police and national guard have known which houses to go to in order to confiscate guns?

demaL-demaL-yeH: In a city under martial law?

Yeah, totally unreasonable.


Sure is, sparky. You're in a situation where law is breaking down, and people are going apeshiat. Going around and illegally confiscating legally owned firearms from law-abiding citizens, during a time they're far more likely to need to use one to protect themselves, is by definition unreasonable. Besides, there's that whole pesky second amendment thing, you know?
 
2014-02-13 03:53:12 AM  

Pokey.Clyde: hardinparamedic: Pokey.Clyde: I said something like a gun registry. And a list of people with carry permits is a list of people who own guns. Not as complete of a list as, say, a mandatory gun registry. But, nonetheless, a list of gun owners was used to illegally confiscate legally owned firearms.

[img.fark.net image 326x463]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x163]

Maybe I should break it down for you?

Gun registry = list of people who own guns
Carry permit = you are on a list that says it is legal for you to carry a firearm, which means in all likelihood you own at least one firearm
Louisiana has no registry, but does issue carry permits.
Without some type of list, how would the police and national guard have known which houses to go to in order to confiscate guns?

demaL-demaL-yeH: In a city under martial law?

Yeah, totally unreasonable.

Sure is, sparky. You're in a situation where law is breaking down, and people are going apeshiat. Going around and illegally confiscating legally owned firearms from law-abiding citizens, during a time they're far more likely to need to use one to protect themselves, is by definition unreasonable. Besides, there's that whole pesky second amendment thing, you know?


demaL has some whacky ideas about the 2nd amendment, it's not worth it to get into it with him. Just nod and move on like when some homeless guy tells you he's Jesus Christ from planet Mongo and needs $5 to fly back.
 
2014-02-13 03:53:59 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: The best course of action at this point would probably be a public awareness campaign combined with an extension of the registration time limits (with a fine for doing so late).  Run ads listing the characteristics of the weapons that fall under the law, let them know that they have until July 1st to register them and pay a minor fine with no criminal penalty, and that if they're caught with an unregistered weapon after that date they'll be charged with a felony.

Just register your dang guns people, the courts have been pretty clear that they're not going to let a law stand that allows the government to take them away.


That's the thing about the courts, they can change their mind. They change their mind a lot. Registration is always the first step towards confiscation.

Consider this: You register your gun. Then one year you have a really bad year and see your doctor about depression. The police then show up at your door and demand you turn over your guns, because they can access both the gun registration and your medical records. This pushes people who would otherwise seek medical attention to avoid it.
 
2014-02-13 03:54:31 AM  

The_Sponge: Good God I hope you are trolling. Way to give an advantage to looters.


I figured you knew by now that they are in nearly every gun thread, shiatting all over the second amendment and pissing their pants over the mere thought of guns.
 
2014-02-13 03:56:10 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Pokey.Clyde: TuteTibiImperes: Just register your dang guns people,

Right. Because the government would never use something like a gun registry to go door-to-door to confiscate guns.

Oh, wait...

In a city under martial law?

Yeah, totally unreasonable.


Indeed, because you're then confiscated all the guns of people who obey the law. Who does that leave with guns?
 
2014-02-13 03:56:12 AM  

Pokey.Clyde: Maybe I should break it down for you?

Gun registry = list of people who own guns
Carry permit = you are on a list that says it is legal for you to carry a firearm, which means in all likelihood you own at least one firearm
Louisiana has no registry, but does issue carry permits.
Without some type of list, how would the police and national guard have known which houses to go to in order to confiscate guns?


And it's just as likely that they used the Project Stargate psychics from the CIA to determine who had a gun and where to go to confiscate. My theory has just as much evidence as yours. The actual truth is they went door to door in many neighborhoods and either asked people if they had a gun, or kicked in the door to "abandoned" houses and took the gun.

If your suggestion is that they used the State CCP list to confiscate "guns", the overwhelming majority of which were not hand guns but long arms and shotguns, I'm going to need a little more than your pokey conspiracy theory to believe you.
 
2014-02-13 03:57:10 AM  

Pokey.Clyde: Sure is, sparky. You're in a situation where law is breaking down, and people are going apeshiat. Going around and illegally confiscating legally owned firearms from law-abiding citizens, during a time they're far more likely to need to use one to protect themselves, is by definition unreasonable. Besides, there's that whole pesky second amendment thing, you know?


Let's not forget the fourth.
 
2014-02-13 03:59:03 AM  

Boojum2k: demaL has some whacky ideas about the 2nd amendment, it's not worth it to get into it with him. Just nod and move on like when some homeless guy tells you he's Jesus Christ from planet Mongo and needs $5 to fly back.


Thanks for the warning. I thought I had most of those people farkied already, but I guess you can't ever catch them all.
 
2014-02-13 04:00:46 AM  
Had the Supreme Court found registration unconstitutional, they would have ruled it just as unconstitutional as the trigger lock requirement.
The court did not. QED.
 
2014-02-13 04:03:26 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Had the Supreme Court found registration unconstitutional, they would have ruled it just as unconstitutional as the trigger lock requirement.
The court did not. QED.


*pat pat* it's okay, I know this kind of thing is above your level.
 
2014-02-13 04:03:39 AM  

Securitywyrm: TuteTibiImperes: The best course of action at this point would probably be a public awareness campaign combined with an extension of the registration time limits (with a fine for doing so late).  Run ads listing the characteristics of the weapons that fall under the law, let them know that they have until July 1st to register them and pay a minor fine with no criminal penalty, and that if they're caught with an unregistered weapon after that date they'll be charged with a felony.

Just register your dang guns people, the courts have been pretty clear that they're not going to let a law stand that allows the government to take them away.

That's the thing about the courts, they can change their mind. They change their mind a lot. Registration is always the first step towards confiscation.

Consider this: You register your gun. Then one year you have a really bad year and see your doctor about depression. The police then show up at your door and demand you turn over your guns, because they can access both the gun registration and your medical records. This pushes people who would otherwise seek medical attention to avoid it.


So you believe that people who are mentally ill should have firearms, no matter that the Supreme Court specifically said that they should not.
 
2014-02-13 04:04:24 AM  

hardinparamedic: The actual truth is they went door to door in many neighborhoods and either asked people if they had a gun, or kicked in the door to "abandoned" houses and took the gun.


Sounds legit. You have a citation for that I take it?
 
2014-02-13 04:08:27 AM  

hardinparamedic: And it's just as likely that they used the Project Stargate psychics from the CIA to determine who had a gun and where to go to confiscate. My theory has just as much evidence as yours. The actual truth is they went door to door in many neighborhoods and either asked people if they had a gun, or kicked in the door to "abandoned" houses and took the gun.

If your suggestion is that they used the State CCP list to confiscate "guns", the overwhelming majority of which were not hand guns but long arms and shotguns, I'm going to need a little more than your pokey conspiracy theory to believe you.


Maybe they used the CCP list, maybe they didn't. We'll never know for sure. However, that doesn't invalidate my points.

- the government has illegally confiscated firearms in the past
- any type of registry/list of gun owners makes it that much easier for them to do it again

And yes, they will do it again.
 
2014-02-13 04:08:37 AM  

Pokey.Clyde: Boojum2k: demaL has some whacky ideas about the 2nd amendment, it's not worth it to get into it with him. Just nod and move on like when some homeless guy tells you he's Jesus Christ from planet Mongo and needs $5 to fly back.

Thanks for the warning. I thought I had most of those people farkied already, but I guess you can't ever catch them all.


My whacky idea: Make firearm training and regular qualification mandatory, like the Founders did.
Somehow idiots here believe that makes me a "gun-grabber".

/Come tp think of it, it's pretty much what the Swiss, who are touted as paragons by some here, do.
 
2014-02-13 04:13:08 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: My whacky idea


No, that wasn't your whacky idea.
Whacky idea part 1, and I quote:
It's long past time for those bearing arms- which really is military service
Whacky idea part 2, quote again
I'm talking about reinstating the organized Militia.
We meet in the equivalent of the town square, drill, train, and qualify with our arms and ammunition, which are inspected.
Every person 16 legally present in the United States and over until death dost thou part participates to the fullest extent possible - participation mandatory and with real penalties attached for missing drill.
Alternative service is done by felons, the mentally ill, physically disabled, and conscientious objectors.
Everybody is screened, physically and mentally for fitness for duty, and must meet minimum standards.
You can own whatever firearms you qualify with, and you must keep them in proper repair and properly secured.
Crew-served weapons are stored at the armory.


http://www.fark.com/comments/8136924/Local-community-organizer-who-a dv ocated-passage-of-NY-SAFE-act-that-forbids-firearms-on-school-grounds- arrested-forwait-for-it
 
2014-02-13 04:14:30 AM  

Boojum2k: Sounds legit. You have a citation for that I take it?


The fact of the matter is that there were armed patrols of police and military everywhere, and the city was under Martial law. Or we could ask Fox News.

A good number of the confiscations were done in people who were seeking shelter or being rescued otherwise.

Even google searching the matter doesn't reveal any evidence of the CCP rolls being used to guide confiscation outside of forums with no proof.
 
2014-02-13 04:15:52 AM  

Pokey.Clyde: Maybe they used the CCP list, maybe they didn't. We'll never know for sure. However, that doesn't invalidate my points.

- the government has illegally confiscated firearms in the past
- any type of registry/list of gun owners makes it that much easier for them to do it again

And yes, they will do it again.


And as a CCP holder, I think I'll continue to abide by the law instead of being paranoid that GUBAMENT GON COME AND TAKE MAH GUNS! and promote inane conspiracy theories with no proof behind them.

And I'll sleep better knowing there is at least some vetting and a basic level of competency of the people who pack heat on the street.
 
2014-02-13 04:16:06 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: The best course of action at this point would probably be a public awareness campaign combined with an extension of the registration time limits (with a fine for doing so late).  Run ads listing the characteristics of the weapons that fall under the law, let them know that they have until July 1st to register them and pay a minor fine with no criminal penalty, and that if they're caught with an unregistered weapon after that date they'll be charged with a felony.

Just register your dang guns people, the courts have been pretty clear that they're not going to let a law stand that allows the government to take them away.


No, the best course of action is exactly what the people of Connecticut are doing: when a judge says, in effect, "well sure it infringes the Second Amendment, but THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" and when the legislators and the courts deliberately and wrongfully define any semiautomatic weapon as an "assault weapon" (which pretty much puts most pistols and hunting rifles, not to mention your basic 22LR, in that category as well), molon farking labe is precisely the right course of action.

Just because some nutcase kid shot up a school--and there are conflicting reports on whether he did it with a civilian AR-15 variant (which bears nothing in common with an actual military assault rifle besides cosmetic appearance) or a regular old rifle--does not mean that every single individual in the State of Connecticut or in the United States of America who owns a weapon capable of firing more quickly than a farking musket is going to go batshiat and start shooting up schools, movie theaters, or gatherings of people where politicians happen to be present.

Jesus Christ, put on your big boy/girl panties you bunch of pussies. Stop acting like Americans constantly accuse the French of acting and farking grow a pair. Never thought I'd live to see the day when the whole damned country needed to be tucked in with a teddy bear and a goddamned night light.
 
2014-02-13 04:20:15 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Pokey.Clyde: TuteTibiImperes: Given the circumstances at the time, the move made sense.

No, it didn't. People, in neighborhoods not flooded, and with plenty of provisions had their means of protection illegally taken away from them. Twist all you want, but nothing will make it right, nor legal.

When the rule of law had essentially broken down, it made sense to take measures to ensure that only those sworn and tasked to uphold the law would be armed.  I'll admit that care should have been taken to record which firearms were taken from each person and every effort made to return all legally possessed firearms to their rightful owners once things had settled down, but the initial idea to reduce violence by reducing the number of guns floating around was a good one.


Made so much sense that in an EF5 with no houses standing, our governor threw DHS and their drones the hell out of the STATE. See, we saw what happened in Katrina and passed a little law down here that said "you don't get to claim 'state of emergency' and take our guns." I think there was one case of attempted looting in Moore last May. Notice the word 'attempted'. Because DHS got tossed out within a few hours of arriving and everyone still had their personal firearms. No one got shot to death, but looting? Yeah. Not so much.

Necessary my ass.
 
2014-02-13 04:24:20 AM  

Aigoo: Made so much sense that in an EF5 with no houses standing, our governor threw DHS and their drones the hell out of the STATE. See, we saw what happened in Katrina and passed a little law down here that said "you don't get to claim 'state of emergency' and take our guns." I think there was one case of attempted looting in Moore last May. Notice the word 'attempted'. Because DHS got tossed out within a few hours of arriving and everyone still had their personal firearms. No one got shot to death, but looting? Yeah. Not so much.

Necessary my ass.


That's pretty interesting, considering FEMA can't even step foot inside of your state without the request of the Governor through a request from the State EMA.

So less "threw them out of the state", and more "didn't request help from FEMA in the first place"
 
Displayed 50 of 441 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report