Sign in to follow this  
billy backstay

Registered my high capacity mag w/state of CT- STOOPID LAW!

Recommended Posts

 

You started talking about the "consipiracy theory" that the UN Small Arms Treaty might cover "end users" like me, so I showed you the fact that it does. That's not switching topics.

 

 

 

 

....

And I note that you use confiscation in absolute terms, while every damn example you can provide is limited and somewhat reasonable.

 

 

I don't think classifying Airsoft guns nor Ruger 10/22's as "assault weapons" is even somewhat reasonable,

 

Your assertion that every example I can find is somewhat reasonable was clearly wrong, as you later admitted:

 

 

Tom, you want me to retract a statement you have not actually presented.

You have challenged it. Where is it?

However my attraction may be in order. As we pursue the point.

 

It appears a major travesty of justice has occured wrt airsoft guns. (The subject is so stupid I can't demean myself to press the link. Seriously.)

....

 

 

 

Had you pressed the link, you would have found (the horror) a link to a PDF from a state website containing the text of the law. Demeaning as hell, I know, to even ask you to look at facts, so I'm not surprised you refused.

 

Now, explain to me again how you're willing to look at sources with which you disagree...

 

 

Tom, what I am unwilling to do is to follow spurious links to distracting topics.

Score yourself a point, though. These airsoft limitations exist, and seem pretty unreasonable as well.

Savor your victory, so we can move on.

 

...

 

Savoring the victory in New Jersey...

 

Actor Facing Ten Years in Prison for Using Airsoft Gun in Movie

 

Oops. Maybe I started savoring too soon.

 

We can move on the day after New Jersey stops doing stupid shit like classifying an Airsoft as an assault weapon and sending people who have not even contemplated hurting anyone with said assault weapon to prison for ten years. Until that day, I'll continue to point out that there is such a thing as unreasonable gun control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Savoring the victory in New Jersey...

 

Actor Facing Ten Years in Prison for Using Airsoft Gun in Movie

 

Oops. Maybe I started savoring too soon.

 

We can move on the day after New Jersey stops doing stupid shit like classifying an Airsoft as an assault weapon and sending people who have not even contemplated hurting anyone with said assault weapon to prison for ten years. Until that day, I'll continue to point out that there is such a thing as unreasonable gun control.

 

 

is an airsoft a gun?

 

Will it help with self defense?

How about overthrowing a tyrant?

 

No? So why would you think it is constitutionally protected?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Savoring the victory in New Jersey...

 

Actor Facing Ten Years in Prison for Using Airsoft Gun in Movie

 

Oops. Maybe I started savoring too soon.

 

We can move on the day after New Jersey stops doing stupid shit like classifying an Airsoft as an assault weapon and sending people who have not even contemplated hurting anyone with said assault weapon to prison for ten years. Until that day, I'll continue to point out that there is such a thing as unreasonable gun control.

 

 

is an airsoft a gun?

 

Will it help with self defense?

How about overthrowing a tyrant?

 

No? So why would you think it is constitutionally protected?

 

 

I don't consider it a gun.

 

It could be useful in self-defense. Ever been hit by one? It stings like hell and would do serious damage if it hit an eye.

 

It would be of little use in overthrowing a tyrant or preserving order in the event of government collapse.

 

I never said it should be protected. I just said it's not an assault weapon and that the man facing ten years in prison for using one in a movie is not a proper subject for prosecution.

 

Do you think it is an assault weapon?

 

Is tossing a guy in prison for ten years for using one in a movie reasonable regulation or just more hoplophobe overreaching?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what's the old saying? "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" - and oh, BTW - this guy isn't exactly a stand up fella (Prior felonies...)

 

Goias rejected a plea deal offer Tuesday that could have sent him to jail for less than a year. He faces up to a decade behind bars because of prior felony convictions that prosecutors say include theft and burglary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what's the old saying? "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" - and oh, BTW - this guy isn't exactly a stand up fella (Prior felonies...)

 

 

Goias rejected a plea deal offer Tuesday that could have sent him to jail for less than a year. He faces up to a decade behind bars because of prior felony convictions that prosecutors say include theft and burglary.

 

I wasn't asking whether he knew the law or should have known it.

 

The question I asked was whether the law is reasonable.

 

I don't think these are hard questions and don't know how to make them simpler. Maybe if we try one at a time you'll be able to answer.

 

Do you think an Airsoft gun is an assault weapon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

what's the old saying? "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" - and oh, BTW - this guy isn't exactly a stand up fella (Prior felonies...)

 

 

Goias rejected a plea deal offer Tuesday that could have sent him to jail for less than a year. He faces up to a decade behind bars because of prior felony convictions that prosecutors say include theft and burglary.

 

I wasn't asking whether he knew the law or should have known it.

 

The question I asked was whether the law is reasonable.

 

I don't think these are hard questions and don't know how to make them simpler. Maybe if we try one at a time you'll be able to answer.

 

Do you think an Airsoft gun is an assault weapon?

 

 

Who says it's an assault weapon? from your cite:

 

New Jersey defines all non-powder guns as firearms, which require a permit to carry them. State lawmakers are pushing legislation that would give prosecutor's more discretion in filing charges under the statute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

what's the old saying? "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" - and oh, BTW - this guy isn't exactly a stand up fella (Prior felonies...)

 

 

Goias rejected a plea deal offer Tuesday that could have sent him to jail for less than a year. He faces up to a decade behind bars because of prior felony convictions that prosecutors say include theft and burglary.

 

I wasn't asking whether he knew the law or should have known it.

 

The question I asked was whether the law is reasonable.

 

I don't think these are hard questions and don't know how to make them simpler. Maybe if we try one at a time you'll be able to answer.

 

Do you think an Airsoft gun is an assault weapon?

 

 

Who says it's an assault weapon? from your cite:

 

New Jersey defines all non-powder guns as firearms, which require a permit to carry them. State lawmakers are pushing legislation that would give prosecutor's more discretion in filing charges under the statute.

 

 

New Jersey law does. They also think a Ruger 10/22 is an assault weapon.

 

For you and the others who didn't read the thread:

 

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=153191&p=4831230

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

what's the old saying? "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" - and oh, BTW - this guy isn't exactly a stand up fella (Prior felonies...)

 

 

Goias rejected a plea deal offer Tuesday that could have sent him to jail for less than a year. He faces up to a decade behind bars because of prior felony convictions that prosecutors say include theft and burglary.

 

I wasn't asking whether he knew the law or should have known it.

 

The question I asked was whether the law is reasonable.

 

I don't think these are hard questions and don't know how to make them simpler. Maybe if we try one at a time you'll be able to answer.

 

Do you think an Airsoft gun is an assault weapon?

 

 

Who says it's an assault weapon? from your cite:

 

New Jersey defines all non-powder guns as firearms, which require a permit to carry them. State lawmakers are pushing legislation that would give prosecutor's more discretion in filing charges under the statute.

 

 

New Jersey law does. They also think a Ruger 10/22 is an assault weapon.

 

For you and the others who didn't read the thread:

 

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=153191&p=4831230

 

Meh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

After many

Months the crime not a crime line remains exactly in the same place .... Directly down the center between R and D .

 

Members of each party know what is really criminal yet they disagree about whether Hillary significantly broke any significant laws.

But they disagree along party lines.

 

Too bad there is no third party with nothing to gain by choosing sides.

 

There's more than one. Most libertarians understand that she broke the law.

 

 

Most libertarians understand that if you feel a gun law deserves no respect, that it is admirable to just break that law (then call it civil disobedience). You are big on that one, Tom Ray.

 

Libertarians have their own take on what is lawful, and what is constitutional.

Libertarians break the laws they don't support.

 

 

Hmmm...

 

OK.

 

The Hartford Courant's Valentine Letter To CT Gun Scofflaws

 

...The dimensions of the unregistered guns problem were outlined in a Tuesday column by The Courant's Dan Haar.

 

Guns defined in state law as assault weapons can no longer be bought or sold in Connecticut. Such guns already held can be legally possessed if registered. But owning an unregistered assault weapon is a Class D felony. Felonies cannot go unenforced.

 

First, however, the registration period should be reopened. It should be accompanied by a public information campaign.

 

Although willful noncompliance with the law is doubtless a major issue, it's possible that many gun owners are unaware of their obligation to register military-style assault weapons and would do so if given another chance.

 

But the bottom line is that the state must try to enforce the law. Authorities should use the background check database as a way to find assault weapon purchasers who might not have registered those guns in compliance with the new law.

 

A Class D felony calls for a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Even much lesser penalties or probation would mar a heretofore clean record and could adversely affect, say, the ability to have a pistol permit.

 

If you want to disobey the law, you should be prepared to face the consequences.

 

Ooops. "Scores of thousands" of newly minted felons who need to be taught a lesson libertarians.

 

Great news for the great state of CT!

I guess if breaking laws you don't support is the mark of a libertarian, Rosa Parks was a libertarian too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom Ray, a ten month race-baiter who drops the names of MLK, and now Rosa Parks.

Shameless trailer park stuff, as usual.

 

 

Hmmm indeed. You have applauded lawless behavior (the breaking of CT gun laws) on our forums. Repeatedly.

Tom, you have quoted the AW registrationnon-compliance percentages in NY, in your gleeful, cheeky way, and now you don't own that.

No, you want to point sanitized libertarian fingers and Hillary's lawlessness.

 

The fact remains that you are selective in supporting the breaking of some laws, then (loftily standing on "the constitution") criticize others who stretch the rules for their own reasons--such as Pennsylvania municipalities in need of simple gun requirements..ahem, such as the requirement to report stolen guns.

 

The Badgeless Propagandist can't have it both ways. I notice that you loudly PLAN to break the law yourself.

According to your own boasts, you plan to break any AW gun registration laws of the future, by taking advantage of the loose secondary gun market which you support.

 

Do most libertarians grasp the difference between lawbreaking and civil disobedience?

Do they apply the constitution impartially to others, and themselves?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...

The fact remains that you are selective in supporting the breaking of some laws, then (loftily standing on "the constitution") criticize others who stretch the rules for their own reasons--such as Pennsylvania municipalities in need of simple gun requirements..ahem, such as the requirement to report stolen guns.

...

 

Do you selectively support stretching the rules that way in Pennsylvania?

 

Is "stretching the rules" the same as breaking the state preemption law? Or does that just sound nicer if you're selectively supporting breaking the law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...

The fact remains that you are selective in supporting the breaking of some laws, then (loftily standing on "the constitution") criticize others who stretch the rules for their own reasons--such as Pennsylvania municipalities in need of simple gun requirements..ahem, such as the requirement to report stolen guns.

...

 

Do you selectively support stretching the rules that way in Pennsylvania?

 

Is "stretching the rules" the same as breaking the state preemption law? Or does that just sound nicer if you're selectively supporting breaking the law?

 

 

Oh snap!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Useful Illogic of Mean-Looking Weapons Bans

 

...one of the main reasons the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit gave for ruling that the New York and Connecticut "assault weapon" bans do not violate the Second Amendment was that law-abiding gun owners have plenty of equally satisfactory alternatives. So do mass shooters, who overwhelmingly prefer handguns to the military-style rifles that are supposedly their "weapon of choice."

 

The appeals court nevertheless deferred to the judgment of state legislators, arguing that the constitutional cost of doing so was slight. Unlike the local handgun bans overturned by the Supreme Court, the 2nd Circuit said, "the statutes at issue do not ban 'an entire class of arms,'" which "makes the restrictions substantially less burdensome."

 

The appeals court reached that conclusion with help from the plaintiffs challenging the laws, who argued that "there is no class of firearms known as 'semiautomatic assault weapons'—a descriptor they call purely political in nature." In other words, "assault weapon" bans are constitutional not in spite of their arbitrariness but because of it.

 

 

They're not banning an entire class of weapons because there's no class of weapons so let's ban the nonexistent class of weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is your response to how the SC refused to sort out the "stoopid" law in CT? It took you a week to form up this dodge? Feeling depressed, are we? The Titanic is sinking, and Tom Ray doesn't care for the arrangement of the lawn furniture on the doomed ship.

 

This is it? All you have to say?

 

 

State pre-emption laws (Tom's dodge) were challenged all over California. Successfully. These laws are shameful, since they use NRA-based manipulations at the state level to deny the voting rights of U.S. citizens, municipalities, counties, wards, and parishes.

.

Such un-democratic approaches are supported by Tom.. He gets high-handed about the "constitution" sometimes, as he teaches others to break constitutional gun laws. Six states have restricted assault weapons. Three circuit courts have supported AW bans. Now the SC has spoken on the CT law, by not speaking. Same for Highland Park, 7-2.

 

Tom's cause, based on the values of the Koch Brothers (who are the founders of the Libertarian philosophy, and the principles behind ALEC) is on the wrong side of history...

 

As we watch, the wheels are coming off: Tom and his buddies are losing this fight in the hearts and minds of Americans. 85% of Americans are rejecting unregulated guns, as are 96% of U.S. Court decisions. As we speak, a defiant sit-in on the floor of congress challenges the NRA.

 

Tom's response is off-mark, out-of-tune, fails to heed the broad strokes of the situation, and doesn't address the import of the SC's silence.

Mr. Ray, you are the most informed member of the SA Gun Club. As such, you are quite a disappointment.

 

To be continued.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know joe, it is shit like you posted above that will drive me to hold my nose and vote for trump just so he will appoint some SC justices that aren't as liberal as RBG, SS, and EK. My best hope is that maybe he nominates a decent VEEP, gets elected and then dies of a heart attack on Jan 22nd. Then said VEEP gets 3 SCOTUS nominees in the next 4 years.

 

A girl can dream, can't she?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Supreme Court has let this law stand. Without comment. They must not think it is inherently stoopid.

 

Such a development deserves ernest, intelligent discussion between those who know the landscape.

A dodge from The Badgeless Dodger is not good enough.

 

 

Seriously, why all the crickets?

 

SC declines to discuss AW ban in Connecticut

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=174702&p=5359558

 

 

Take me to your leader.

After this Supreme Court refusal to discuss the stoopid NY/CT AW restrictions, Tom went MIA.

The same thing happened after Friedman vs. Highland Park: Tom went MIA.

The same thing happened after Jackson vs. SF: Tom went MIA...but he had breezily predicted a summary dismissal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe YOU are sharp enough to discuss this with me, Jeff.

At the heart of the matter would be an informed discussion of individual rights, not on the level of Trump's bumper sticker understanding.

The homework which CT did, and even my homework, is way ahead of you.

If you don't up your game you may fly into a ditch, one dug by the Supreme Court.

 

 

Connecticut's Individual Right to Arms - 190 Years Before Heller

Pasted from <http://www.dailykos....s-Before-Heller>

There is no ambiguity in Connecticut's constitutional right to armed self-defense. The right is explicitly stated as an individual right rather than a collective right. It has no connection to military service. Residents of The Nutmeg State have enjoyed an individual right to keep and bear arms (RKBA) long before the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment that way in DC v Heller (2008).

The Connecticut legislature began major gun law reform in 1993. It was the height of the crack cocaine epidemic when cities in the state had soaring crime and high murder rates. They passed a law similar to the Brady Act that limited ownership of assault weapons and large capacity magazines. They required a permit for handguns and background checks for all gun purchases. During the past 20 years, Connecticut's gun laws and regulations have been challenged and

upheld multiple times in state courts. Every time the legislature drafted or amended their gun laws they took their state constitutional right to keep and bear arms into consideration.

In recent years the Connecticut legislature has requested dozens of reports on various aspects of firearms law and policy. All of them are available online for free. For example, before they updated their law limiting high-capacity ammunition magazine they requested a review of other state laws that limit magazines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm from Florida and abide by our laws. We're allowed to own mean looking rifles, though I do not own one.

 

I said in that other thread that I understand why people don't want to sign up to have their guns confiscated upon their deaths, if not before. I also said that I understand why people like Billy don't want to get a felony conviction.

 

Billy is pragmatic. I understand that he supports a family, eh?

Do his sons need to go to college soon? Why be a fool for guns? Felony gun penalties are debilitative, I hear.

 

Billy has chosen the middle ground as we approach the uncertain future.

We can build a fine society on Billy's model of civic responsibility.

We need to figure out how to get the second amendment to work:

defying constitutional laws (in CT, NY, IL, CA or MA) is decadence. It is not a superior application of the constitution. Just sayin'.

 

 

The future of Billy's magazine is certain: he can't hand it down to his heirs. He signed up to have it confiscated upon his death if he does not get rid of it sooner.

 

Lots of people want their children to have the same freedom to own such a thing that they have enjoyed and did not sign up for the confiscation program.

 

Like I said, I understand both positions.

 

I'm glad I don't have to make such a choice. I can just buy a mean-looking rifle if I ever decide I want one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This comment really belongs in this thread, not the one in which it was posted, because it says what Democrats have to say to the offspring of gun owners:

 

 

Suck it, surviving family members!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had to make an appointment with the State Police to have a town constable meet me at Town Hall to affix my thumb print to the bottom of the form. Also had to create and have notarized an affidavit swearing that I acquired it prior to April 4, 2013. All this BS for one 20 round "banana clip" for a Mini-14 Ranch Rifle...

 

Like this is going to cure the mentally ill people who go on shooting rampages????

 

Life's a bitch ain't it?

 

You must really struggle with the requirements for driving a car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Had to make an appointment with the State Police to have a town constable meet me at Town Hall to affix my thumb print to the bottom of the form. Also had to create and have notarized an affidavit swearing that I acquired it prior to April 4, 2013. All this BS for one 20 round "banana clip" for a Mini-14 Ranch Rifle...

 

Like this is going to cure the mentally ill people who go on shooting rampages????

 

Life's a bitch ain't it?

 

You must really struggle with the requirements for driving a car.

 

 

That is a really poor analogy. The registration requirement was not for a gun, but for a gun part. It would be like having to get fingerprinted and register a single headlight, in addition to the car. Not only that, but upon your death, the headlight would need to be removed and turned over to the police, it could not be included with the inheritance. Failure to comply with turning over the headlight could carry criminal penalties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Had to make an appointment with the State Police to have a town constable meet me at Town Hall to affix my thumb print to the bottom of the form. Also had to create and have notarized an affidavit swearing that I acquired it prior to April 4, 2013. All this BS for one 20 round "banana clip" for a Mini-14 Ranch Rifle...

 

Like this is going to cure the mentally ill people who go on shooting rampages????

 

Life's a bitch ain't it?

 

You must really struggle with the requirements for driving a car.

 

 

That is a really poor analogy. The registration requirement was not for a gun, but for a gun part. It would be like having to get fingerprinted and register a single headlight, in addition to the car. Not only that, but upon your death, the headlight would need to be removed and turned over to the police, it could not be included with the inheritance. Failure to comply with turning over the headlight could carry criminal penalties.

 

 

You missed a couple. The registry Billy signed up for is closed so no one can register any more. Also, cars are not constitutionally protected so how we treat them does not affect other constitutional rights.

 

The analogy would work better if we closed a car registry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Citing the minority in Heller and a liberal, pro-gun control constitutional scholar CREDIBILITY ALERT is not waving a libertarian wand. I think all of those people would be shocked by your ignorance at calling them libertarians.

 

1937 was not 150 years ago. 1857 was a lot closer and we know what the Supreme Court thought of the second amendment at that time.

 

 

Do Black People Have Equal Gun Rights?

 

(...snipped: place Tom's undeveloped racial conclusion here)

 

Former Chief Justice Taney sure had an interesting view of gun rights.

 

At least he had the good sense to realize that you can't just let black people keep and bear arms wherever they go as if they were white or something.

 

 

 

Saul Cornell has a doctorate. And he has creds.

He isn't "pro-gun" or "anti'gun" that I know of, since his discipline is history.

I'm not sure he has even written about guns as such, I've only found his history stuff.

Have any cites or Cornell dirt for us?

 

Tom, here's a GROUP of professors are ARE talking about guns. From your Prof. Adam Winkler, whom you have quoted several times. He is cut from slightly different cloth than Cornell, in a basic way. But Winkler and other historians recently signed two different consensus agreements, with two different groups, WRT how history has reflected on gun policy. You may find them interesting.

Statement of Law Professors on the Constitution and Executive Action to Reduce Gun Violence November 2015 (excerpted) The Court’s recognition that these types of laws are compatible with the Second Amendment reflects the historical understanding of the constitutional right: since the Colonial and Founding Eras, robust government regulation of the ownership and use of firearms has coexisted alongside, and been understood as consistent with, the Second Amendment.3 Taken from 2015 Statement of Law Professors on the Constitution and Executive Action to Reduce Gun Violence November 2015 http://www.acslaw.org/sites/default/files/Law%20Professor%20Statement%2011-12-15.pdf

 

 

2013 Statement of Professors of Constitutional Law: The Second Amendment and the Constitutionality of the Proposed Gun Violence Prevention Legislation In this sense, Justice Scalia recognized in Heller that, like other constitutional rights, the Second Amendment is not an absolute. ... The founding fathers who wrote and ratified the Second Amendment also had laws to keep guns out of the hands of people thought to be untrustworthy. Such laws were necessary to ensure that the citizen militia referenced in the Second Amendment was “well regulated.” ... . Laws such as these were routinely upheld by the courts, which recognized the legitimacy of legislative efforts to keep the most dangerous weapons out of the hands of the most dangerous people. ... Universal background checks, especially those conducted instantaneously through the National Instant Background Check System, do not impose a significant burden on lawabiding citizens. ... Moreover, background checks imposed at the point of sale are typical of the “conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms” recognized by the Supreme Court in Heller. Restrictions on the manufacture and sale of high-capacity ammunition magazines and assault weapons are also consistent with the Second Amendment. SIGNED BY (about 75 PROFESSORS) http://www.acslaw.org/Second%20Amendment%20Letter%20Final.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paging Deplorable Tom.

Tom has been barely active on the gun forums for a week or so.

Tom got beat up with his own words from several angles.

Then Tom STFU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I will order another ten pack of standard capacity magazines for my AR-15.

 

75 PROFESSORS and one cranky Joe disapprove.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so much cranky as tenacious. You got out-studied, out-learned.

No comments on this documented, solid body of historical conclusion?

No more snappy rejoinders using Adam Winkler quotes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To Washington State gungrabbers,
...
(b ) A semiautomatic pistol, or a semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine, that has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition;

 

 

 

that means they think a tube-fed .22 rifle holding 14 rounds is an "assault weapon."

 

 

 

 

That gun was non-scary when my wife bought it, having plain wood furniture.

 

The gun grabbers in Washington want to call it an "assault weapon" along with my dad's old tube-fed .22 because once you have a scary catch-phrase like "assault weapon" the game becomes: how many different guns can we put that label on and ban them?

 

As usual, the "gun violence" statistics they trot out to justify this nonsense are mostly suicides.

 

Then gun nutz come along and say, "You want to call ordinary .22 rifles "assault weapons" and ban them because of suicides? How stupid is that?" This is an indication of our stubborn refusal to enact reasonable gun control.

 

 

HA! Sad but true.

 

 

...

Tom is correct that the tube feeder and an AW are not to be compared fairly.

...

 

And yet that's exactly what the proposed law in your state does. Are you doing anything to stop it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our topic was constitutional history. Your interaction was a petty distraction, and another effort to confuse assault weapon definition.

 

Did you open the links? The links to the two conventions of historians were presented by Adam Winkler himself, without explanation or comment, but he was among the signers of both documents.

 

Can you present pro-gun historians to challenge them? Can you debate their platform? Or does their work stand?

They agreed on what they agreed on, and it doesn't support second amendment absolutism.

It indicates that Larry Pratt is imagining insurrectionist motivations among the framers of the constitution.

 

You have no comment? Just a third grand female boogaloo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think I will order another ten pack of standard capacity magazines for my AR-15.

 

75 PROFESSORS and one cranky Joe disapprove.

Bummer.

 

If he keeps it up I just may build a couple more.

 

Building an AR-15 from an 80% lower is actually a lot of fun, you should try it sometime. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

To Washington State gungrabbers,

Jocal505:

...

Tom is correct that the tube feeder and an AW are not to be compared fairly.

...

 

And yet that's exactly what the proposed law in your state does. Are you doing anything to stop it?

 

 

 

NOT exactly. In fact you just abused the words and intent of Washington State Law. Deplorably.

Your quote is taken from line 27. You used this very dishonest, cherry-picked snippet,

"Large capacity magazine" means an ammunition feeding device 29 with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition

Let's continue, quoting lines 28-37:

"Large capacity magazine" means an ammunition feeding device 29 with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition, … but shall not be construed to include 33 any of the following: 34 (a) …37 ( B) A twenty-two caliber tube ammunition feeding device;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I think I will order another ten pack of standard capacity magazines for my AR-15.

75 PROFESSORS and one cranky Joe disapprove.

Bummer.

 

If he keeps it up I just may build a couple more.

 

Building an AR-15 from an 80% lower is actually a lot of fun, you should try it sometime. :)

 

 

Pics or your competition gun is a water pistol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

To Washington State gungrabbers,

 

"Assault weapon" means:

 

 

Jocal505:

...

Tom is correct that the tube feeder and an AW are not to be compared fairly.

...

And yet that's exactly what the proposed law in your state does. Are you doing anything to stop it?

 

NOT exactly. In fact you just abused the words and intent of Washington State Law. Deplorably.

Your quote is taken from line 27. You used this very dishonest, cherry-picked snippet,

"Large capacity magazine" means an ammunition feeding device 29 with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition

 

Let's continue, quoting lines 28-37:

"Large capacity magazine" means an ammunition feeding device 29 with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition, … but shall not be construed to include 33 any of the following: 34 (a) …37 ( B) A twenty-two caliber tube ammunition feeding device;

 

 

I commented on this in the GA thread. This is what the law says:

 

No person in this state may manufacture, possess, purchase, sell, or otherwise transfer any assault weapon or large capacity magazine except as authorized in this section

 

 

What does "or" mean to you? It means either an assault weapon OR a large capacity magazine is banned. The tube fed .22 fits the definition of an assault weapon so it doesn't matter whether the magazine is defined not to be large. It's banned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The .22 tube feeder is specifically excluded, eh? In black and white.

My rifle is not an AW for many other reasons, too.

No fake news boogaloo (in your undies) is gonna change that.

This problem has the same substance as your "transfer" problem; none at all.

You are simply lying at this point.

 

 

 

 

TR%20Crybaby%2011%20tube%20feeder_zps9l7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I think I will order another ten pack of standard capacity magazines for my AR-15.

 

75 PROFESSORS and one cranky Joe disapprove.

Bummer.

If he keeps it up I just may build a couple more.

Building an AR-15 from an 80% lower is actually a lot of fun, you should try it sometime. :)

Pics or your competition gun is a water pistol

A water pistol?

 

Tell you what: we will take a video of it in action during next months annual pumpkin shoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's compromise, how about pics of the receiver in progress.

I have an engraver, we can pick a serial number...

Greeves, you have serious (and rare) perspective to add to the Post Racial America thread. Check it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The .22 tube feeder is specifically excluded, eh? In black and white.

 

That's right. The law says that such a tube magazine is not a large capacity magazine.

 

You're ignoring what ELSE the law says. It says that a semiauto rimfire holding more than 10 rounds is an assault weapon. There's no exception in that part for .22's.

 

The law says assault weapons OR standard capacity magazines are banned. That means either one is banned.

 

I don't know how to make this more simple for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The .22 tube feeder is specifically excluded, eh? In black and white.

 

That's right. The law says that such a tube magazine is not a large capacity magazine.

 

You're ignoring what ELSE the law says. It says that a semiauto rimfire holding more than 10 rounds is an assault weapon. There's no exception in that part cite the line then for .22's.

 

The law says assault weapons OR standard capacity magazines are banned. That means either one is banned.

 

I don't know how to make this more simple for you. DOUBLE LACK OF CITATION ALERT.

1. No GA link to whatever disinformation you posted

2. No link to the words of the un identified "different" section of the law phrasing which you supposedly quote. Present both.

 

 

You are making it complicated.

 

 

The law says assault weapons OR standard capacity magazines are banned. That means either one is banned. So be it. But a tube feeder is neither, according to the statute

 

The wording you quote is slightly different, and also uncited.

 

 

No person in this state may manufacture, possess, purchase, sell, or otherwise transfer any assault weapon or large capacity magazine except as authorized in this section Which section? The statue exempts tube feeders on line 37, see above. See below, too.

 

From the statute's definition of Assault Weapon, Line 25, p 5,

Once again Tom, "Large capacity magazine" was defined and qualified here. To insist my tube feeder .22 is an AW is a lie.

 

 

Let's continue, quoting lines 28-37:

"Large capacity magazine" means an ammunition feeding device 29 with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition, … but shall not be construed to include 33 any of the following: 34 (a) …37 ( B) A twenty-two caliber tube ammunition feeding device;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You saw my post in GA and replied to it.

 

(27) "Assault Weapon means:

 

...

 

(b ) A semiautomatic pistol, or a semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine, that has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition;

 

 

My dad's old .22 is a semiauto rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition. That's an assault rifle.

 

Section 29 says that a .22 tube magazine is not a large capacity magazine, but there is no exemption to the assault rifle definition. So it's an assault rifle with a non-large magazine.

 

NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW to read as follows:
(1) No person in this state may manufacture, possess, purchase, sell, or otherwise transfer any assault weapon or large capacity magazine except as authorized in this section

 

 

There's no exemption for assault rifles with non-large magazines.

 

The only reason to include "rimfire" in the assault rifle definition is to ban rifles like my dad's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's compromise, how about pics of the receiver in progress.

I have an engraver, we can pick a serial number...

Greeves, you have serious (and rare) perspective to add to the Post Racial America thread. Check it out.

Since I have no intention

Let's compromise, how about pics of the receiver in progress.

I have an engraver, we can pick a serial number...

Greeves, you have serious (and rare) perspective to add to the Post Racial America thread. Check it out.

Since I have no intention of selling it, I do not have to put a serial number on it. If I do decide to sell it, I will put a serial number on it that is at least .003" deep as the law requires. I am after all, a law abiding citizen. Ain't America great?

 

In regards to your link, I may check it out...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

there is no exemption to the assault rifle definition.

 

Shortly following the assault weapon definition, section 27, are two qualifying sections specifying exemptions.

The statute offers outright that tube feeders "shall not be construed" as LCM's in 29.

 

You'd like the disclaimer under section 27 to be within 27. That;s nice, but this minor, over-worked detail sounds like sour grapes.

I'm trying to picture the legal brief you could manage around such a complaint.No victims would be presentable in your court case, including your father and I, the owners of the guns in question

It's like the way you David Kopel, and Alan Gottlieb mangle the legal need for "transfer" verbiage.

 

By the time you get worked up in another myopic outrage, there;s not enough standing for a court presentation.

The SAF sued WA over transfer verbiage. Theytried to save face after their dumbass confiscation scare tactics lost to background checks (by a 20 point voting margin).

Laughed out of court, Gottlieb drove away in a black Corvette paid for by an SAF pre-emption settlement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yuuuge Increase in Gun Permit Fees

 

Gun owners will see huge increases in permit fees that would raise millions of dollars to help the state combat its two-year, $3.6 billion deficit.

 

As part of his budget, Malloy is proposing to increase the state portion of the pistol permit fee from $70 to $300. He also is proposing the cost of the initial 5-year pistol permit fee from $140 to $370.

 

The increase in fees for gun owners will bring in another $9 million to the state annually, according to the governor’s budget estimates.

 

Additionally, Malloy is proposing to increase background check fees from its current $50 to $75.

 

That increase, the governor’s budget estimates, would bring in another $2.6 million annually to the state’s coffers.

 

 

Well, after bringing in that 2.6 million, the deficit will be down to $3.6 billion. It did make a tiny dent in the 600 million part to the right of the decimal, but is that really the reason for the large increases?

 

Or perhaps the theory is that richer people are less violent or somehow otherwise more deserving of second amendment rights.

 

Or maybe they just want to punish the enemy gun owners in any way possible, regardless of whether they're rich or poor or whether it will really make any difference in the state budget deficit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

there is no exemption to the assault rifle definition.

 

Shortly following the assault weapon definition, section 27, are two qualifying sections specifying exemptions.

The statute offers outright that tube feeders "shall not be construed" as LCM's in 29.

 

You'd like the disclaimer under section 27 to be within 27. That;s nice, but this minor, over-worked detail sounds like sour grapes.

 

 

An exemption to one definition is not an exemption to another. Someday, an honest liberal might appear and explain this to you and we can move on to the "oops we didn't mean to ban those" stage of this conversation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Making the exercise of protected rights unaffordable for the poor is bad. Sometimes.

 

It can disproportionately affect minorities. Also sometimes bad.

 

But the same people who think a few bucks for an ID to vote is a prohibitive barrier to a protected right have nothing to say about a few hundred bucks extracted from enemy gun owners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not too hard to figure out, Pooplius.

It's because voting is intrinsically important, and because guns are just guns.

Limiting voting is bad for the general population. Limiting guns isn't.

 

EQUATING GUNS TO VOTING IS A FALSE EQUIVALENCE, at least among non-extremists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not too hard to figure out, Pooplius.

It's because voting is intrinsically important, and because guns are just guns.

Limiting voting is bad for the general population. Limiting guns isn't.

 

EQUATING GUNS TO VOTING IS A FALSE EQUIVALENCE, at least among non-extremists.

 

It's really mostly limiting guns to poor people. Limiting their rights does little to harm the rest of us and treating a protected right with disrespect can't possibly spread through the courts to the others. Also, Favre sucked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not too hard to figure out, Pooplius.

It's because voting is intrinsically important, and because guns are just guns.

Limiting voting is bad for the general population. Limiting guns isn't.

 

EQUATING GUNS TO VOTING IS A FALSE EQUIVALENCE, at least among non-extremists.

 

It's really mostly limiting guns to poor people. Limiting their rights does little to harm the rest of us and treating a protected right with disrespect can't possibly spread through the courts to the others. Also, Favre sucked.

 

 

Libertarians are champions of the poor?

 

No, Pooplius is hiding behind poverty.

After hiding behind the ACLU.

And hiding behind the NAACP.

And hiding behind MLK.

And hiding behind Rosa Parks.

And hiding behind Rev. Mosteller and the SCLC.

And hiding behind the CDC 2013 report.

And hiding behind Adam Winkler..

While quoting Sol Rosenberg whenever possible.

 

Yet each of these parties holds fundamental differences to Tom Ray's actal beliefs and policies.

Each would dis-associate with Tom IMO.

 

This manipulation, this pattern of deception, shows that Tom recognizes the "higher road" elements of our culture.

It displays that he can't show such fine elements while flying the flag of his own brand.

His brand opposes most of what these parties stand for.

Interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Not too hard to figure out, Pooplius.

It's because voting is intrinsically important, and because guns are just guns.

Limiting voting is bad for the general population. Limiting guns isn't.

 

EQUATING GUNS TO VOTING IS A FALSE EQUIVALENCE, at least among non-extremists.

 

It's really mostly limiting guns to poor people. Limiting their rights does little to harm the rest of us and treating a protected right with disrespect can't possibly spread through the courts to the others. Also, Favre sucked.

 

 

Libertarians are champions of the poor.

 

Yes, we are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not too hard to figure out, Pooplius.

It's because voting is intrinsically important, and because guns are just guns.

Limiting voting is bad for the general population. Limiting guns isn't.

 

EQUATING GUNS TO VOTING IS A FALSE EQUIVALENCE, at least among non-extremists.

 

No fucklehead - its equating the 2nd Amendment to the 15th Amendment. How one right is treated affects how all other rights are treated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You will never equate the two. Their very natures are dis-similar. Their respective karma will take them to separate spheres. Watch and learn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Not too hard to figure out, Pooplius.

It's because voting is intrinsically important, and because guns are just guns.

Limiting voting is bad for the general population. Limiting guns isn't.

 

EQUATING GUNS TO VOTING IS A FALSE EQUIVALENCE, at least among non-extremists.

 

It's really mostly limiting guns to poor people. Limiting their rights does little to harm the rest of us and treating a protected right with disrespect can't possibly spread through the courts to the others. Also, Favre sucked.

 

 

Libertarians are champions of the poor.

 

Yes, we are.

 

 

The Koch Brothers and CATO are champions of the poor. Have a cite?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see. Libertarians oppose the high costs of gun permit stuff.

That's theirr contribution to balance poverty in the USA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey billy,

 

I've been wondering about something.

 

If the new CT law had required that your magazine be confiscated immediately instead of upon your death, would you have complied?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering because on July 1, Californians are supposed to hand their scary standard capacity magazines over.

 

I think there will be quite a few uncooperative ones. I'm keeping this screen name at least until then in anticipation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey billy,

 

I've been wondering about something.

 

If the new CT law had required that your magazine be confiscated immediately instead of upon your death, would you have complied?

I am pleading the Fifth on that one, Tom....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hey billy,

 

I've been wondering about something.

 

If the new CT law had required that your magazine be confiscated immediately instead of upon your death, would you have complied?

I am pleading the Fifth on that one, Tom....

 

 

Well, that's an answer of sorts.

 

I think the Cali way of going about it is more honest in the long run.

 

Either way, you're leaving the next generation without a freedom you enjoyed. In Cali, you have to accept the consequences in your own life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either way, the gun fanatic era is passing.

In fact, it's passing both ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Racists, Commies, and Atheists! Oh My!

 

 

Forty years ago, young college students were the most tolerant of controversial speech. That is no longer the case.

Most Americans still agree that we should allow people to say what they think.

 

Those who don't are, ironically, making their enemies more powerful by drawing attention to them. Guns.

 

And you are sure doing your bit for the anti gun lobby Tom.

 

Not sure why this reply ended up in a thread about intolerance so I decided it should go where my most recent gun posts have been.

 

Why is asking about the timing of gun confiscation such a terrible thing to do, Liferandom?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2014 at 8:57 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

The Hartford Courant's Valentine Letter To CT Gun Scofflaws

 

Quote

...The dimensions of the unregistered guns problem were outlined in a Tuesday column by The Courant's Dan Haar.

 

Guns defined in state law as assault weapons can no longer be bought or sold in Connecticut. Such guns already held can be legally possessed if registered. But owning an unregistered assault weapon is a Class D felony. Felonies cannot go unenforced.

 

First, however, the registration period should be reopened. It should be accompanied by a public information campaign.

 

Although willful noncompliance with the law is doubtless a major issue, it's possible that many gun owners are unaware of their obligation to register military-style assault weapons and would do so if given another chance.

 

But the bottom line is that the state must try to enforce the law. Authorities should use the background check database as a way to find assault weapon purchasers who might not have registered those guns in compliance with the new law.

 

A Class D felony calls for a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Even much lesser penalties or probation would mar a heretofore clean record and could adversely affect, say, the ability to have a pistol permit.

 

If you want to disobey the law, you should be prepared to face the consequences.

 

Ooops. "Scores of thousands" of newly minted felons who need to be taught a lesson.

It's possible that a few of those "scores of thousands" were unaware they were becoming felons by failing to sign up to have their guns confiscated but I think most were deliberately Uncooperative because they did not want their guns confiscated upon their deaths.

On 9/25/2017 at 10:28 PM, Spatial Ed said:

Registration.  It will send a message to irresponsible gun toters that we are serious about guns.


What do you think, Ed? Was it the confiscation or something else that caused "scores of thousands" of people to become felons rather than cooperating with your plan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Uncooperative Tom said:
On 2/16/2014 at 5:57 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:

 

Quote

...The dimensions of the unregistered guns problem were outlined in a Tuesday column by The Courant's Dan Haar.

 

Guns defined in state law as assault weapons can no longer be bought or sold in Connecticut. Such guns already held can be legally possessed if registered. But owning an unregistered assault weapon is a Class D felony. Felonies cannot go unenforced.

 

First, however, the registration period should be reopened. It should be accompanied by a public information campaign.

 

Although willful noncompliance with the law is doubtless a major issue, it's possible that many gun owners are unaware of their obligation to register military-style assault weapons and would do so if given another chance.

 

But the bottom line is that the state must try to enforce the law. Authorities should use the background check database as a way to find assault weapon purchasers who might not have registered those guns in compliance with the new law.

 

A Class D felony calls for a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Even much lesser penalties or probation would mar a heretofore clean record and could adversely affect, say, the ability to have a pistol permit.

 

If you want to disobey the law, you should be prepared to face the consequences.

 

Ooops. "Scores of thousands" of newly minted felons who need to be taught a lesson.

It's possible that a few of those "scores of thousands" were unaware they were becoming felons by failing to sign up to have their guns confiscated but I think most were deliberately Uncooperative because they did not want their guns confiscated upon their deaths.

On 9/26/2017 at 6:28 AM, Spatial Ed said:

Registration.  It will send a message to irresponsible gun toters that we are serious about guns.


What do you think, Ed? Was it the confiscation or something else that caused "scores of thousands" of people to become felons rather than cooperating with your plan?

I suspect there will be scores of thousands who, when the Po-leece shows up at their door to confiscate weapons and arrest them on a felony, will simply claim that they sold them to "some guy" a while back.  That's my story and I'm sticking to it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I suspect there will be scores of thousands who, when the Po-leece shows up at their door to confiscate weapons and arrest them on a felony, will simply claim that they sold them to "some guy" a while back.  That's my story and I'm sticking to it.  

My high capacity magazine is state registered, but do I believe my Mini-14 Ranch Rifle is still exempt, unless the law has been changed again, when I wasn't paying attention?

I wasn't paying attention in 1995, when my 100 Ton USCG license required renewing, and they did not send me a renewal form, as they had in the past.  Damn shame, as it's a royal PITA to try and renew it now, with TSA BS, etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Jeff was talking about this:

Quote

Authorities should use the background check database as a way to find assault weapon purchasers who might not have registered those guns in compliance with the new law.

I think your gun is still exempt, just the scary magazine must be exported to another state (something that's sometimes bad) or confiscated upon your death.

I don't know about you, but I react to grabbers saying "you can keep the gun, just not the (ammo, firing pin, magazine, whatever other crucial part) about the same way sailors would react to a mast ban. "You can keep your sailboat, just no masts" will not make sailors feel like nothing bad has happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I think Jeff was talking about this:

Quote

Authorities should use the background check database as a way to find assault weapon purchasers who might not have registered those guns in compliance with the new law.

I think your gun is still exempt, just the scary magazine must be exported to another state (something that's sometimes bad) or confiscated upon your death.

Yes, you are correct sir.  That was exactly what I was referring to.

I'm curious though, the Op/ed piece talks about registering "assault weapons".  How is BBS's Mini-14 exempt from that?  Its more of an "assault rifle" than jocal's tube fed .22LR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Greever said:

Mini-14's fly under the grabbers radar every time.

it is just a "Ranch Rifle" after all...

Ah yes.  If course.  Because this rifle:

firearms-images-products-422l.jpg

Is SOOOO much less dangerous than this rifle:

5846.jpg

 

How do I know???  Because one of these makes jocal shit his pants and the other doesn't.  THAT is what differentiates an "assault rifle".  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. And if you put a flush fitting 5 round mag in that one with the wooden stock, it looks just like a deer rifle, and we all know deer rifles are not dangerous!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Greever said:

Mini-14's fly under the grabbers radar every time.

it is just a "Ranch Rifle" after all...

Not every time. We have remarkably thorough grabbers in Florida.

But on the federal level, Billy's gun did slip through the cracks the last time I checked.

On 10/14/2016 at 7:44 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

 

...

 

Text of HR 4269 - Assault Weapons Ban of 2015

 

A Mini 14 is only as dangerous as an AR-15 if it has a folding stock. Billy's is on the list of specific exemptions.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Hey Billy,

If I mail you a saw and a hinge, will you turn your gun into an assault weapon? You know, just to be Uncooperative?

No, folding stock makes it illegal and way more dangerous, than with full wood stock, right??

Kind of like a sawed off shotgun is way more dangerous than my Belgian Browning, or Sears Roebuck 12 gauge.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, billy backstay said:

No, folding stock makes it illegal and way more dangerous, than with full wood stock, right??

Kind of like a sawed off shotgun is way more dangerous than my Belgian Browning, or Sears Roebuck 12 gauge.........

Bah, just because the government calls it scary doesn't mean you have to adopt that opinion as your own. That's what Aussies do, and a useful tendency if you're going to have a prison island, so well done, Brits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2014 at 8:57 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

The Hartford Courant's Valentine Letter To CT Gun Scofflaws

 

 

Ooops. "Scores of thousands" of newly minted felons who need to be taught a lesson.

13 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

I don't think so. People have really short memories and attention spans.

If one had gradual and grandfathered legislation..like..

all new guns must be registered...fee $25 (admin costs)

...all owned guns must be registered within 5 years say.july.2022

registered by july 2019 no fees

registered  by july 2020 fee $10 per

Reistered by July 2021 fee $30 per

get the idea?

Then..when most people have put their pocket before their principles (as most people do..eventually) and regestered their guns

You can start getting heavy on fines for the recalcitant..most people will not sympathise because it's human nature to forget all about principles you abandoned.

Evil I know :)

Here's the problem with your little plan. The linked article says:

Quote

Widespread noncompliance with this major element of a law that was seen as a speedy and hopefully effective response by Connecticut to mass shootings such as the one at Sandy Hook creates a headache for the state.

You're not talking about a few Uncooperative people like you might see on an island that used to be a prison.

Scores of thousands. "Widespread" noncompliance.

There are lots of people who did not wish to sign up to have their guns confiscated and became felons as a result. You think a little money is going to change that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Er Tom..you do know that Australians are envious of those with a convict ancestor don't you.. :D

you couldn't be offering a better compliment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shortforbob said:

Er Tom..you do know that Australians are envious of those with a convict ancestor don't you.. :D

you couldn't be offering a better compliment.

We admire more our ancestors who fought those nasty Brits than any who were disarmed and imprisoned by them.

Might explain why you think that we'd see a small and dwindling minority of people who don't cooperate with confiscation programs.

We don't. As Eva Dent. There were cooperative folks like Billy who signed up but noncompliance was (and remains) widespread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

We admire more our ancestors who fought those nasty Brits than any who were disarmed and imprisoned by them.

Might explain why you think that we'd see a small and dwindling minority of people who don't cooperate with confiscation programs.

We don't. As Eva Dent. There were cooperative folks like Billy who signed up but noncompliance was (and remains) widespread.

And injuns..don't forget the injuns!!:rolleyes:

I think my little 5 year plan may have hit a nerve with tommy :D

The hip pocket nerve will beat a twitchy trigger finger every single time..all you'l have left are the bundys :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shortforbob said:

The hip pocket nerve will beat a twitchy trigger finger every single time..all you'l have left are the bundys :D

A felony conviction and 5 years in prison is just a bit more harsh than your little fines and failed miserably, with even supporters admitting to "widespread" noncompliance by "scores of thousands" of CT residents.

Any group of scores of thousands contains mostly good people who don't harm others. Yes, even gun owners.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites