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  
•       •       •

4744 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Feb 2014 at 3:03 AM (35 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 07:15:56 AM  

smoky2010: Farkage: BlackCat23: //it's also questionable if the law would hold up in courts if challenged. The "assualt weapon" thing is so farking neabulous, that even the lawmakers couldn't tell you the difference between an AR15 and a Savage .223 varmint rifle.

They can tell you the difference!  The evil one always has the goatee.
/I hope that law gets slapped down ferociously.  Malloy is a dick.

It's pretty well known that Malloy is a putz. He is also very vindictive. The issue besides Malloy in CT, is the 2 new senators, Murphy & Blumenthal. I have never liked Murphy, he is just a grand stander. Blumenthal though, I had a lot of respect for when he was the Attorney General. I have lost all of that respect for him with his actions as a Senator. Both of these jokers backed Malloy just to get into the papers and try to say "Look at me"

I don't think any of these people will survive reelection.


I actually emailed Blumenthal about this when it was going on, and his responce was the political "Important to protect the children from another Sandy Hook".  I emailed him back using FBI statistics (and citations to the source) about the extreme rarity of these firearms being used in such a manner, as well as Malloy's statement that "No amount of laws could have possibly prevented this", AND the fact that CT announced (just DAYS after Sandy Hook) that they were slashing mental health funding to help the budget, and his response was simply, "Sorry.  Apparently we have different ideas on the best way to prevent this."
So yeah, he's a f'ing douche.  "I don't need to use facts and data!!!"  What a dick.
 
2014-02-13 07:18:02 AM  

smoky2010: t's pretty well known that Malloy is a putz. He is also very vindictive. The issue besides Malloy in CT, is the 2 new senators, Murphy & Blumenthal. I have never liked Murphy, he is just a grand stander. Blumenthal though, I had a lot of respect for when he was the Attorney General. I have lost all of that respect for him with his actions as a Senator. Both of these jokers backed Malloy just to get into the papers and try to say "Look at me"

I don't think any of these people will survive reelection.


Murphy? Likely not. Bluementhol? His follwing is very loyal. And like you, I became disenfranchised with him when he became a senator. He did great things for the state as AG, but then went full derp once Mr Smith Mr Mr Blumenthol went to Washington.

 There's nothing about this bullshiat that isn't kneejerk. And they're completely blind to that fact because some people(who, granted, went through unimaginable tragedy)screamed very loud about it. They are not indicative of the million+ gun owners in the state. On top of this delicious bit of irony, the town of Newington had something like a 300% rise in permit requests since the shooting. It's depressing, all around.

/and for the record. I'm the libbiest lib that has ever libbed. Well, in  Litchfield County, anyway
//but I take our constitutional rights very seriously. That's part of being an actual liberal. Without constitutional amendment, there should be no changes like this. I was against the brady bills, as well. Just as I'm against any first amendment changes, privacy laws, etc.
 
2014-02-13 07:21:17 AM  

Farkage: smoky2010: Farkage: BlackCat23: //it's also questionable if the law would hold up in courts if challenged. The "assualt weapon" thing is so farking neabulous, that even the lawmakers couldn't tell you the difference between an AR15 and a Savage .223 varmint rifle.

They can tell you the difference!  The evil one always has the goatee.
/I hope that law gets slapped down ferociously.  Malloy is a dick.

It's pretty well known that Malloy is a putz. He is also very vindictive. The issue besides Malloy in CT, is the 2 new senators, Murphy & Blumenthal. I have never liked Murphy, he is just a grand stander. Blumenthal though, I had a lot of respect for when he was the Attorney General. I have lost all of that respect for him with his actions as a Senator. Both of these jokers backed Malloy just to get into the papers and try to say "Look at me"

I don't think any of these people will survive reelection.

I actually emailed Blumenthal about this when it was going on, and his responce was the political "Important to protect the children from another Sandy Hook".  I emailed him back using FBI statistics (and citations to the source) about the extreme rarity of these firearms being used in such a manner, as well as Malloy's statement that "No amount of laws could have possibly prevented this", AND the fact that CT announced (just DAYS after Sandy Hook) that they were slashing mental health funding to help the budget, and his response was simply, "Sorry.  Apparently we have different ideas on the best way to prevent this."
So yeah, he's a f'ing douche.  "I don't need to use facts and data!!!"  What a dick.


I did the same thing, I sent a well reasoned email to his office and received a 2 page form letter back. He is a dick.
 
2014-02-13 07:21:35 AM  

jso2897: Aigoo: 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.

Her, folks, stripped of all phony "maturity" and fake reasonableness, is the gun fapper argument - if you don't agree with them - you're a great big sissy. You can't really argue with that.
I don't mean to say it's correct - you just can't argue with it.


That's an interesting argument from someone who claimed the GOP made the movie that supposedly incited Benghazi.
 
2014-02-13 07:23:24 AM  

Farkage: I actually emailed Blumenthal about this when it was going on, and his responce was the political "Important to protect the children from another Sandy Hook".  I emailed him back using FBI statistics (and citations to the source) about the extreme rarity of these firearms being used in such a manner, as well as Malloy's statement that "No amount of laws could have possibly prevented this", AND the fact that CT announced (just DAYS after Sandy Hook) that they were slashing mental health funding to help the budget, and his response was simply, "Sorry.  Apparently we have different ideas on the best way to prevent this."
So yeah, he's a f'ing douche.  "I don't need to use facts and data!!!"  What a dick.


This was essentially the same response my friend got when he did the same. He also pointed out that Blumenthol would never have allowed this to happen while he was AG, since the state relies so heavily on firearms manufacturing, and his job as AG would have been to keep those jobs in balance with safty. He got the same brush-off. The issue is, most people in the state would gladly re-elect him. He's a staple of CT politics, and such a well known name for the good he once did that this will hardly put a tarnish spot on his political silver spoon.


/Malloy? He's got very little chance of surviving this. CT is a very diverse state, politically. And you're going to see a lot more people vote red outside of litchfield county(the local hive of scum and villainy known as the teaparty)just to oust him over this. It's going to be a huge farking talking point come the election.
 
2014-02-13 07:24:00 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: 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.


You fail basic logic.

/go change your pants, you've soiled yourself
 
2014-02-13 07:24:17 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: 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.


So, in your mind, someone diagnosed with depression shouldn't be allowed to have firearms?  My wife is an Army officer.  After her first trip to Iraq, she went to mental health, was diagnosed with mild depression, and prescribed Lexapro.  She has had her security clearances renewed, and redeployed a couple of times, where she had a weapon on her at all times.  But in your mind, we shouldn't be allowed to have a .22 in our house, because... Why?
 
2014-02-13 07:27:27 AM  
Good luck with that.
 
2014-02-13 07:27:38 AM  

Piizzadude: So much for the law abiding gun owner myth.

Law says register your guns, you register. You deserve the conviction and removal of your 2nd amendment rights.

PS the 2nd says you can have a gun, it doesnt say under what terms and conditions.


I hate when people quote this line, but there is a connotation regarding terms and conditions with "shall not be infringed."

Obviously Americans have already been willing to accept "reasonable" limits, but you're clearly misrepresenting the language in the document you're referring to.
 
2014-02-13 07:29:58 AM  
FTA: "If you pass laws that people have no respect for and they don't follow them, then you have a real problem."

Well. Sounds like THIS legislator has at least 2 brain cells.
 
2014-02-13 07:30:10 AM  

Piizzadude: So much for the law abiding gun owner myth.

Law says register your guns, you register. You deserve the conviction and removal of your 2nd amendment rights.

PS the 2nd says you can have a gun, it doesnt say under what terms and conditions.


First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist.
 
2014-02-13 07:31:18 AM  

BlackCat23: smoky2010: t's pretty well known that Malloy is a putz. He is also very vindictive. The issue besides Malloy in CT, is the 2 new senators, Murphy & Blumenthal. I have never liked Murphy, he is just a grand stander. Blumenthal though, I had a lot of respect for when he was the Attorney General. I have lost all of that respect for him with his actions as a Senator. Both of these jokers backed Malloy just to get into the papers and try to say "Look at me"

I don't think any of these people will survive reelection.

Murphy? Likely not. Bluementhol? His follwing is very loyal. And like you, I became disenfranchised with him when he became a senator. He did great things for the state as AG, but then went full derp once Mr Smith Mr Mr Blumenthol went to Washington.

 There's nothing about this bullshiat that isn't kneejerk. And they're completely blind to that fact because some people(who, granted, went through unimaginable tragedy)screamed very loud about it. They are not indicative of the million+ gun owners in the state. On top of this delicious bit of irony, the town of Newington had something like a 300% rise in permit requests since the shooting. It's depressing, all around.

/and for the record. I'm the libbiest lib that has ever libbed. Well, in  Litchfield County, anyway
//but I take our constitutional rights very seriously. That's part of being an actual liberal. Without constitutional amendment, there should be no changes like this. I was against the brady bills, as well. Just as I'm against any first amendment changes, privacy laws, etc.


I agree with your assessment. This was a knee jerk reaction to a true tragedy. They, incorrectly, assumed that legal gun owners need to be restricted. They completely ignored the facts that Lanza stole the guns he used. The new law didn't do anything about illegal guns or the mentally ill.
I always considered myself a very middle of the road person, politically anyway. I support background checks on all firearms, but the system to check people out needs to be available for people to do personal sales, you shouldn't have to go through a FFL and pay a fee.
Tolland County here, Hope you make out okay in the storm today, I'm already at work....
 
2014-02-13 07:32:41 AM  

smoky2010: Farkage: smoky2010: Farkage: BlackCat23: //it's also questionable if the law would hold up in courts if challenged. The "assualt weapon" thing is so farking neabulous, that even the lawmakers couldn't tell you the difference between an AR15 and a Savage .223 varmint rifle.

They can tell you the difference!  The evil one always has the goatee.
/I hope that law gets slapped down ferociously.  Malloy is a dick.

It's pretty well known that Malloy is a putz. He is also very vindictive. The issue besides Malloy in CT, is the 2 new senators, Murphy & Blumenthal. I have never liked Murphy, he is just a grand stander. Blumenthal though, I had a lot of respect for when he was the Attorney General. I have lost all of that respect for him with his actions as a Senator. Both of these jokers backed Malloy just to get into the papers and try to say "Look at me"

I don't think any of these people will survive reelection.

I actually emailed Blumenthal about this when it was going on, and his responce was the political "Important to protect the children from another Sandy Hook".  I emailed him back using FBI statistics (and citations to the source) about the extreme rarity of these firearms being used in such a manner, as well as Malloy's statement that "No amount of laws could have possibly prevented this", AND the fact that CT announced (just DAYS after Sandy Hook) that they were slashing mental health funding to help the budget, and his response was simply, "Sorry.  Apparently we have different ideas on the best way to prevent this."
So yeah, he's a f'ing douche.  "I don't need to use facts and data!!!"  What a dick.

I did the same thing, I sent a well reasoned email to his office and received a 2 page form letter back. He is a dick.


The thing that really pisses me off is I'm pretty liberal, but I am 100% behind the ENTIRE bill of rights, including the 2nd Amendment.  I hate it when people decide to try to redefine or marganalize it ("But it's an outdated amendment!  We don't NEED it!"), while counterarguments about how they could then ignore the 4th, 5th, and half the 1st get responses from them of "That's different!!".  Cherrypicking the Bill of Rights is unacceptable.  If each of us decided which of the amendments we feel should be supported and which we can ignore because "feelings", there would be no rights left.  (And yes, I actually know people that say the 5th is outdated and you should be forced to testify because if you didn't do anything wrong you have nothing to hide.  After all, investigative techniques are better now than they were when the Constitution was written.)
 
2014-02-13 07:33:01 AM  

Pokey.Clyde: 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.


You want to worship the 2nd Amendment? Fine, how about you remember the part where it says "WELL REGULATED" eh?  As in, the Government knowing what guns you have and requiring you to show knowledge in their care, use & proper storage.
 
2014-02-13 07:33:14 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: You say no one is denying the Govt. has illegally confiscated arms, and in the next breath you say it's a conspiracy theory.... despite evidence in reality to the contrary and contrary to your own admission.


Maybe. 

Just. Just maybe.

You want to read the entire thread before jumping in the middle of it.

His (Pokey.Clyde)'s statement, was that the US Government intentionally used the Concealed Carry Permit rosters to know who to target for deliberate confiscations. When he was confronted with no proof for this claim, he acted incredulous and stated he was willing to believe it - which is what I called him out over.

Despite the fact the majority of the confiscations were shotguns and rifles, obtained by illegal searches of secured, and unsecured properties by military and police authorities, and by forcibly taking them from people who did not evacuate and identified as having firearms to authorities.

But yeah. I'm totes denying it happened. You caught me.
 
2014-02-13 07:34:54 AM  

BlackCat23: Farkage: I actually emailed Blumenthal about this when it was going on, and his responce was the political "Important to protect the children from another Sandy Hook".  I emailed him back using FBI statistics (and citations to the source) about the extreme rarity of these firearms being used in such a manner, as well as Malloy's statement that "No amount of laws could have possibly prevented this", AND the fact that CT announced (just DAYS after Sandy Hook) that they were slashing mental health funding to help the budget, and his response was simply, "Sorry.  Apparently we have different ideas on the best way to prevent this."
So yeah, he's a f'ing douche.  "I don't need to use facts and data!!!"  What a dick.

This was essentially the same response my friend got when he did the same. He also pointed out that Blumenthol would never have allowed this to happen while he was AG, since the state relies so heavily on firearms manufacturing, and his job as AG would have been to keep those jobs in balance with safty. He got the same brush-off. The issue is, most people in the state would gladly re-elect him. He's a staple of CT politics, and such a well known name for the good he once did that this will hardly put a tarnish spot on his political silver spoon.


/Malloy? He's got very little chance of surviving this. CT is a very diverse state, politically. And you're going to see a lot more people vote red outside of litchfield county(the local hive of scum and villainy known as the teaparty)just to oust him over this. It's going to be a huge farking talking point come the election.


Tom Foley is already using this in his campaign to be the next Governor.
 
2014-02-13 07:36:28 AM  
Connecticutians?
 
2014-02-13 07:36:33 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: your second argument shouldn't exist if FEMA cannot even come into the state without a request (which the governor never made. how do you reconcile this with reality?


FEMA cannot self-activate as a disaster response authority without a disaster assistance request by the Governor of that state. Even if they ARE requested, the incident does not become FEMA's incident - it's still managed by local authorities. They CAN send in individuals to prepare reports and advise federal authorities on what is going on in preparation for a disaster response activation. Those individuals have no power to perform activities or assist/direct in response or recovery operations unless activated by the Governor's request for aid.

But why let things like pesky facts get in the way of a good paranoia.
 
2014-02-13 07:39:35 AM  

Daemonik: Pokey.Clyde: 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.

You want to worship the 2nd Amendment? Fine, how about you remember the part where it says "WELL REGULATED" eh?  As in, the Government knowing what guns you have and requiring you to show knowledge in their care, use & proper storage.


You need to learn what "well regulated" meant at the time the Constitution was written.  Until then you just sound foolish.
The audio of the entire Supreme Court Heller case is available in several places on the internet, with all testimony from both sides as well as the questions from the Justices quite clearly there for all to hear.  Listen to it and you might learn something.
 
2014-02-13 07:41:36 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


Like a birth certificate or something?
 
2014-02-13 07:42:57 AM  

smoky2010: I always considered myself a very middle of the road person, politically anyway. I support background checks on all firearms, but the system to check people out needs to be available for people to do personal sales, you shouldn't have to go through a FFL and pay a fee.
Tolland County here, Hope you make out okay in the storm today, I'm already at work....


Torrington, here. We're supposed to take a full fledged snow-dicking. Everything up here is already shut down, so I don't have to worry much.

 But I agree, between the idea of punishing law abiding owners(and the guys I go shooting with regularly), this completely ignored any further penalties for people that use illegal firearms in the use of a crime, on top of that, Malloy killing mental health priorities not long after was just farking stupid. Like I said, I'm insanely liberal. I think we should all have healthcare, I belive in equal rights. I also believe in strictly enforcing the constitution and bill of rights. And as I said, if this makes it to SCOTUS, or even district courts, I doubt it'll survive. I know a few gun clubs up here are doing fund raisers to get the ball rolling. The other thing I don't like is they're trying to push through a law about mental health restrictions that are completely off the wall. I suffer from anxiety. Not depression, not phycosis, bipolar or anything else, but the law would prevent me, a guy with the jitters who doesn't much care for interpersonal interaction outside of friends and family, from owning a gun. I'm no risk to anyone or myself, this is well documented, but that doesn't stop them from once again making ridiculous, nebulizing laws.

 I have sent more than my fair share of letters. I've just gotten form letters in return. My next step is to get some friends together and phone-bomb offices. When that doesn't work, I will change my voting style. I haven't voted republican since 2004, but for what it's worth, CT republicans that aren't teaparty shills are generally rather reasonable, and have kept the balance in CT for decades. But it would likely make little difference since I live in Litchfield county, a heavily red area in the first place(for example, the only county McMahon won). It's going to be an uphill battle on this, and the only hope, IMO, is for the people to force this through the courts.
 
2014-02-13 07:45:37 AM  

smoky2010: Tom Foley is already using this in his campaign to be the next Governor.


Foley has as much of a chance of becoming govoner as Atlantis does of rising from the deep blue sea. The majority of the state hates him, so I doubt it'll happen

August11: Connecticutians?


Nutmeggers >.>
 
2014-02-13 07:50:35 AM  

BlackCat23: smoky2010: Tom Foley is already using this in his campaign to be the next Governor.

Foley has as much of a chance of becoming govoner as Atlantis does of rising from the deep blue sea. The majority of the state hates him, so I doubt it'll happen

August11: Connecticutians?

Nutmeggers >.>


I'd love to see Courtney run, he's a really good guy. I met him a couple of times when I was working for a non-profit hospital in WAY WAY eastern CT. I'd vote for him. I have thought about running for office for years, I think with all of this stuff going on, I may do it sooner then later. Start small (locally) and see where it goes.
 
2014-02-13 07:51:44 AM  
The 2nd amendment says I don't need your frikkin permit. Piss off.
 
2014-02-13 07:57:19 AM  

smoky2010: BlackCat23: smoky2010: Tom Foley is already using this in his campaign to be the next Governor.

Foley has as much of a chance of becoming govoner as Atlantis does of rising from the deep blue sea. The majority of the state hates him, so I doubt it'll happen

August11: Connecticutians?

Nutmeggers >.>

I'd love to see Courtney run, he's a really good guy. I met him a couple of times when I was working for a non-profit hospital in WAY WAY eastern CT. I'd vote for him. I have thought about running for office for years, I think with all of this stuff going on, I may do it sooner then later. Start small (locally) and see where it goes.


I would, too. But at the same time, he's another long time player in the state's poltik. And I have to wonder what changes he'd make to his platform to "conform" to the standards of the screaming, foot pounding few. I've met him, myself, and yes, he seems a genuinely nice guy with a good head on his shoulders, but I still fear that, like Blumenthol, This is always going to be the catch-22 of state elections :\
 
2014-02-13 08:02:21 AM  
i976.photobucket.com">
 
2014-02-13 08:02:40 AM  

BlackCat23: smoky2010: BlackCat23: smoky2010: Tom Foley is already using this in his campaign to be the next Governor.

Foley has as much of a chance of becoming govoner as Atlantis does of rising from the deep blue sea. The majority of the state hates him, so I doubt it'll happen

August11: Connecticutians?

Nutmeggers >.>

I'd love to see Courtney run, he's a really good guy. I met him a couple of times when I was working for a non-profit hospital in WAY WAY eastern CT. I'd vote for him. I have thought about running for office for years, I think with all of this stuff going on, I may do it sooner then later. Start small (locally) and see where it goes.

I would, too. But at the same time, he's another long time player in the state's poltik. And I have to wonder what changes he'd make to his platform to "conform" to the standards of the screaming, foot pounding few. I've met him, myself, and yes, he seems a genuinely nice guy with a good head on his shoulders, but I still fear that, like Blumenthol, This is always going to be the catch-22 of state elections :\


I hate the 'vote for the lesser of the assholes' part of CT politics.  It just seems like when the elections come around it's what we always end up doing...
 
2014-02-13 08:04:12 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.


Yeah, that's really not going to happen.

Understanding Gun Control in America:  The Remainder Problem.

It doesn't even work in countries that don't have a gun culture as deeply rooted as in the US:

Data from international experiments with gun prohibition and 
registration illustrates a powerful and nearly universal individual 
impulse to defy gun bans. With data from seventy-seven countries, 
the International Small Arms Survey reports massive illegal 
parallel holdings with an average defiance ratio of 2.6 illegal guns 
for every legal one.75 This average is pulled down by rare cases like 
Japan.76


So yeah, across-the-board registration just isn't going to fly in the US.  *BEST* case, you'll have 3 unregistered guns for every legally registered one.
 
2014-02-13 08:04:31 AM  

Piizzadude: Can you yell fire in a crowded theater or is that illegal?


Well, if it's actually on fire, not only is it allowed, but it's a very good idea and highly encouraged!
 
2014-02-13 08:09:04 AM  

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

Just how the fark do you rationalize that??!?  Disarming the law abiding public absolutely ensures only the people that refused to register their guns (criminals) in a time of crisis are armed, while the police are completely overwhelmed and are unable to help you if anything happens helps society out precisely how??!?

Dey not tankin' ur gunz, theys wants you to register dem. ani't noes disarmin' goin' on  less you cant foller da lawz.


If you could just kindly point to ONE example in history where citizens were required to register all their guns and it was not followed by mass confiscation, that would be great.
 
2014-02-13 08:09:34 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.


I am going to weigh in here to say this was a very BAD idea.  Why strip law-abiding gun owners of their weapons when they needed them most?
 
2014-02-13 08:09:40 AM  

RobSeace: Piizzadude: Can you yell fire in a crowded theater or is that illegal?

Well, if it's actually on fire, not only is it allowed, but it's a very good idea and highly encouraged!


Yeah, I laugh at that example of a restriction on a right, because it's not prior restraint.  You *ARE* free to falsely yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, you just need to be prepared to suffer the legal consequences afterwards.  They don't muzzle you prior to entering.

So owning a gun should be the same:  You can own them and use them, but you need to understand that you will face legal sanctions if you misuse them.
 
2014-02-13 08:10:51 AM  

Farkage: BlackCat23: smoky2010: BlackCat23: smoky2010: Tom Foley is already using this in his campaign to be the next Governor.

Foley has as much of a chance of becoming govoner as Atlantis does of rising from the deep blue sea. The majority of the state hates him, so I doubt it'll happen

August11: Connecticutians?

Nutmeggers >.>

I'd love to see Courtney run, he's a really good guy. I met him a couple of times when I was working for a non-profit hospital in WAY WAY eastern CT. I'd vote for him. I have thought about running for office for years, I think with all of this stuff going on, I may do it sooner then later. Start small (locally) and see where it goes.

I would, too. But at the same time, he's another long time player in the state's poltik. And I have to wonder what changes he'd make to his platform to "conform" to the standards of the screaming, foot pounding few. I've met him, myself, and yes, he seems a genuinely nice guy with a good head on his shoulders, but I still fear that, like Blumenthol, This is always going to be the catch-22 of state elections :\

I hate the 'vote for the lesser of the assholes' part of CT politics.  It just seems like when the elections come around it's what we always end up doing...


Unfortunately, we in CT only seem to get crappy candidates. They pander to the New Haven and "Gold Coast" areas of the state. In Eastern CT, we are basically ignored. None of them have any convictions that they are willing to stand behind.

Unfortunately again, this law will stand unless the Supreme Court kills it. There are too many people that don't understand the law and only know what people tell them. They say, "Yes, less guns would be great!" not realizing that it won't do anything to the illegal guns on the street. Once you start explaining that to most people they understand why this is a bad law. Also, the constant sensationalism on Sandy Hook on local and national media doesn't help either.
 
2014-02-13 08:11:06 AM  

Farkage: I hate the 'vote for the lesser of the assholes' part of CT politics.  It just seems like when the elections come around it's what we always end up doing...


Could be worse. C'mon up to Litchfield County(Torrington in paticular)where the politics of the area has been firmly in the grasp of two families for the last 30+ years. There's still a "good ol' boy" network up here. Voting for the lesser of the two evils still gets you Bond level evil, either way you go. CT runs off long-term professional politics. They start as city council members, and work up to mayor, reps, then governor and beyond. I don't think there's ever been a "dark horse" pol in state history :\
 
2014-02-13 08:11:24 AM  

August11: Connecticutians?


Connecticoonts.
 
2014-02-13 08:11:48 AM  
Kind of funny, because pretty soon it really will be only a single shot break action shotgun will be legal, and only in 410. We keep telling you what will happen, you keep saying it won't, but then it does.

Liberals are scum.
 
2014-02-13 08:12:10 AM  

dittybopper: 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.

Yeah, that's really not going to happen.

Understanding Gun Control in America:  The Remainder Problem.

It doesn't even work in countries that don't have a gun culture as deeply rooted as in the US:

Data from international experiments with gun prohibition and 
registration illustrates a powerful and nearly universal individual 
impulse to defy gun bans. With data from seventy-seven countries, 
the International Small Arms Survey reports massive illegal 
parallel holdings with an average defiance ratio of 2.6 illegal guns 
for every legal one.75 This average is pulled down by rare cases like 
Japan.76

So yeah, across-the-board registration just isn't going to fly in the US.  *BEST* case, you'll have 3 unregistered guns for every legally registered one.


Well, that flies in the face of the responsible 'law-abiding' gun owner doesn't it.

Fine, don't register your assault weapons, just don't complain when you get caught with an unregistered one and you're convicted of a felony and forever banned from owning any guns.
 
2014-02-13 08:12:34 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.


You understand that this logic is exactly the reason why gun registration is bad.  You are basically saying 'It is OK for the government to unilaterally suspend constitutional rights as long as they feel it is justified'.  This is the exact senerio that justifiably scares most gun owners (and believers in the constitution).
 
2014-02-13 08:14:19 AM  

Thunderpipes: Kind of funny, because pretty soon it really will be only a single shot break action shotgun will be legal, and only in 410. We keep telling you what will happen, you keep saying it won't, but then it does.

Liberals are scum.


it would actually be a 10 gauge, this way you can get ammo. They'll also outlaw hand-loading pretty soon.
 
2014-02-13 08:14:44 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]


Since you live in Tennessee, why don't YOU look up the laws in Louisiana before you go full potato?
 
2014-02-13 08:16:08 AM  

Cold_Sassy: I am going to weigh in here to say this was a very BAD idea.  Why strip law-abiding gun owners of their weapons when they needed them most?


Large amounts of this.  It is precisely when law and order break down that the need for individuals to protect themselves and their property is most acute.  That is when the Second Amendment should be accorded the most respect.

In an emergency, your property (ie., supplies like fresh water or the means to make it, medicines, shelter, fuel for cooking or water purification, etc.)  may be the only thing keeping you alive, so protecting it from theft may well be worth killing someone over, as a means of self-defense.
 
2014-02-13 08:16:37 AM  

Thunderpipes: Kind of funny, because pretty soon it really will be only a single shot break action shotgun will be legal, and only in 410. We keep telling you what will happen, you keep saying it won't, but then it does.

Liberals are scum.


A break-action .410? Why would you need such a dangerous assault rifle?
 
2014-02-13 08:17:19 AM  

smoky2010: Unfortunately, we in CT only seem to get crappy candidates. They pander to the New Haven and "Gold Coast" areas of the state. In Eastern CT, we are basically ignored. None of them have any convictions that they are willing to stand behind.

Unfortunately again, this law will stand unless the Supreme Court kills it. There are too many people that don't understand the law and only know what people tell them. They say, "Yes, less guns would be great!" not realizing that it won't do anything to the illegal guns on the street. Once you start explaining that to most people they understand why this is a bad law. Also, the constant sensationalism on Sandy Hook on local and national media doesn't help either.


We fought it pretty farking hard up here in Litchfield Co, from Dems, to Reps, to Teabaggers alike. We *all* knew it was a bad law. On top of that, I like to chuck out the fact that gun permit registrations in Sandyhook went up something like 300% since the shootings happened, and it's flatly ignored. So the entire town can get guns, but because the vocal minority(and those that lost their children, whom I feel terrible for. Not just platitude, but genuinely feel for, and as such, understand their standpoint)have managed to get laws passed that only a minority wanted in the first place. CT, per capita, has some of the highest gun ownership rates in the country. Most of these people are law abiding, safe, and generally sport shooters or hunters. And it was like NO ONE even farking CONSIDERED the fact that a huge part of our economy in the state has to do with firearms manufacture. Which is now leaving the state in droves due to this. So, so many things wrong.

 Still, I stand by the fact that, since the law is enacted, you should register. The way to fight the law is not by making yourself a non-voting felon. The way to fight the law is roll with it, then make just as much of a stink as that very vocal minority did. And in this case, the gun owners are the majority. I don't like the law, not one bit, but putting yourself on the wrong side of it isn't going to help your case.
 
2014-02-13 08:17:34 AM  

smoky2010: Farkage: BlackCat23: smoky2010: BlackCat23: smoky2010: Tom Foley is already using this in his campaign to be the next Governor.

Foley has as much of a chance of becoming govoner as Atlantis does of rising from the deep blue sea. The majority of the state hates him, so I doubt it'll happen

August11: Connecticutians?

Nutmeggers >.>

I'd love to see Courtney run, he's a really good guy. I met him a couple of times when I was working for a non-profit hospital in WAY WAY eastern CT. I'd vote for him. I have thought about running for office for years, I think with all of this stuff going on, I may do it sooner then later. Start small (locally) and see where it goes.

I would, too. But at the same time, he's another long time player in the state's poltik. And I have to wonder what changes he'd make to his platform to "conform" to the standards of the screaming, foot pounding few. I've met him, myself, and yes, he seems a genuinely nice guy with a good head on his shoulders, but I still fear that, like Blumenthol, This is always going to be the catch-22 of state elections :\

I hate the 'vote for the lesser of the assholes' part of CT politics.  It just seems like when the elections come around it's what we always end up doing...

Unfortunately, we in CT only seem to get crappy candidates. They pander to the New Haven and "Gold Coast" areas of the state. In Eastern CT, we are basically ignored. None of them have any convictions that they are willing to stand behind.

Unfortunately again, this law will stand unless the Supreme Court kills it. There are too many people that don't understand the law and only know what people tell them. They say, "Yes, less guns would be great!" not realizing that it won't do anything to the illegal guns on the street. Once you start explaining that to most people they understand why this is a bad law. Also, the constant sensationalism on Sandy Hook on local and national media doesn't help either.


Yeah, I hear you.  I've donated a few times to the lawsuit.
Regarding people understanding the laws here, a friend of mine up the road (degree from Yale, not at all a stupid girl) was 100% in favor of this law because "Nobody should be able to just walk into a gun store and just buy a machine gun no questions asked.  This has to be stopped!!!"  And that was just last June.
Dear god do I wish she was kidding.  I invited her to come to a gun store with me and find out how well her ideas of gun purchases work...  She was actually surprised when I explained the laws to her, but it didn't change her mind because "you don't need a gun".
 
2014-02-13 08:19:15 AM  
"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
 
2014-02-13 08:21:03 AM  
Nobody seems to remember where "fire in a crowded theater" came from.

It came from a decision outlawing protest against World War I. Is that an example you'd like to follow?
 
2014-02-13 08:21:08 AM  

Farkage: smoky2010: Farkage: BlackCat23: smoky2010: BlackCat23: smoky2010: Tom Foley is already using this in his campaign to be the next Governor.

Foley has as much of a chance of becoming govoner as Atlantis does of rising from the deep blue sea. The majority of the state hates him, so I doubt it'll happen

August11: Connecticutians?

Nutmeggers >.>

I'd love to see Courtney run, he's a really good guy. I met him a couple of times when I was working for a non-profit hospital in WAY WAY eastern CT. I'd vote for him. I have thought about running for office for years, I think with all of this stuff going on, I may do it sooner then later. Start small (locally) and see where it goes.

I would, too. But at the same time, he's another long time player in the state's poltik. And I have to wonder what changes he'd make to his platform to "conform" to the standards of the screaming, foot pounding few. I've met him, myself, and yes, he seems a genuinely nice guy with a good head on his shoulders, but I still fear that, like Blumenthol, This is always going to be the catch-22 of state elections :\

I hate the 'vote for the lesser of the assholes' part of CT politics.  It just seems like when the elections come around it's what we always end up doing...

Unfortunately, we in CT only seem to get crappy candidates. They pander to the New Haven and "Gold Coast" areas of the state. In Eastern CT, we are basically ignored. None of them have any convictions that they are willing to stand behind.

Unfortunately again, this law will stand unless the Supreme Court kills it. There are too many people that don't understand the law and only know what people tell them. They say, "Yes, less guns would be great!" not realizing that it won't do anything to the illegal guns on the street. Once you start explaining that to most people they understand why this is a bad law. Also, the constant sensationalism on Sandy Hook on local and national media doesn't help either.

Yeah, I hear you.  I've donated a few times to the lawsuit.
Regarding people understanding the laws here, a friend of mine up the road (degree from Yale, not at all a stupid girl) was 100% in favor of this law because "Nobody should be able to just walk into a gun store and just buy a machine gun no questions asked.  This has to be stopped!!!"  And that was just last June.
Dear god do I wish she was kidding.  I invited her to come to a gun store with me and find out how well her ideas of gun purchases work...  She was actually surprised when I explained the laws to her, but it didn't change her mind because "you don't need a gun".


Right, no one needs a gun, until you need a gun. Just like, you never need a fire department, until your house is on fire.
 
2014-02-13 08:21:51 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.


How about "no?" Is "no" good for you?
 
2014-02-13 08:23:16 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.

No, what the court has made it very clear is Inter arma enim silent leges.

The courts will allow the state to do any g.d. thing they choose to do.
Wasn't the fark weekend movie "Judgment at Nirenberg" just 2 weeks ago? Slow learners huh?
 
2014-02-13 08:25:38 AM  
I left Vermont for VA. Vermont has some of the loosest gunlaws in the country. Hardly any gun crime. And lo and behold, Burlington moron liberals are now pushing for the same type of laws. Democrats control the entire government, so might be able to get them passed on the state level (which they need to to allow a town to create ordinances).

What bugs me, is not a single law they pass does absolutely anything to reduce crime. Not one. All it does is create new criminals from the law abiding. Why can't liberals be honest? Why do they just lie, all the time? President said you can keep your rifles, you can keep your shotguns, etc. That the next big lie to surface, that we all knew about?

Sick of this crap. I own two rifles, a beautiful 1941 numbers matching K98, and a modern Springfield M1A. Had to have magazines sent from VT to VA to avoid being a felon transporting through NY state. We just got a Democratic Governor here in VA. How long till I am a felon as well? All for 100 rounds of target shooting a year, and collection factor? How long until the ancient bolt action rifle is illegal because the round is too big, or it was used in a war, or it has metal parts, or something stupid?
 
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 »






Report