Connecticut has very likely created tens of thousands of newly minted criminals; 20-100k at least

[The Straight Story]

Everyone knew there would be some gun owners flouting the law that legislators hurriedly passed last April, requiring residents to register all military-style rifles with state police by Dec. 31.

But few thought the figures would be this bad.

By the end of 2013, state police had received 47,916 applications for assault weapons certificates, Lt. Paul Vance said. An additional 2,100 that were incomplete could still come in.

That 50,000 figure could be as little as 15 percent of the rifles classified as assault weapons owned by Connecticut residents, according to estimates by people in the industry, including the Newtown-based National Shooting Sports Foundation. No one has anything close to definitive figures, but the most conservative estimates place the number of unregistered assault weapons well above 50,000, and perhaps as high as 350,000.

And that means as of Jan. 1, Connecticut has very likely created tens of thousands of newly minted criminals — perhaps 100,000 people, almost certainly at least 20,000 — who have broken no other laws. By owning unregistered guns defined as assault weapons, all of them are committing Class D felonies.

http://www.courant.com/business/hc-haar-gun-registration-felons-20140210,0,3161975.column

[DetlefK]

1. Compare this to driving an unregistered car or opening an unregistered factory.

The purpose of neither of those is killing people.

So, what's the outrage? If you own a lethal device, you should be aware of the responsibilities that come with it.

[Marrah_G]

2. Why don't they register them?

I have to register my dog and my car... if I don't, I can get in trouble. If they are responsible gun owners they will register their weapons according to the law.

[mikeysnot]

8. responsible gun owners that's funny...

the responsible ones already did...

[hack89]

10. Combination of ignorance of the law and civil disobedience I would imagine. nt

[TheCowsCameHome]

11. Maybe they're too scared.

Big gummint's gonna come take their weapons, you know.

[hack89]

22. Most likely they are not scared of the government

they know the state will not vigorously enforce it. Law enforcement has bigger problems to deal with while the politicians do not want to ignite a political firestorm in an election year.

[bemildred]

36. Many people ignore the law whenever they feel they can get away with it.

And that is the way it is supposed to be too, there is a reasonableness component to obeying the law, the law contradicts itself (thanks, lawmakers) and one must choose, and pragmatic considerations apply too.

[NutmegYankee]

117. Cars are not considered household property.

Cars and boats are considered personal property that can be operated on public spaces and require registration for that purpose. But if they are not being driven, such as a project car in a garage, they do not need to be registered. Registration and licensing revolves around operation on public roadways. And we all know that cars are used daily on public roads.

Guns fall under household property rules, and are not taxable nor does the government license their operation on public roadways/waterways. If we blur that line we could start a trend of taxing household goods, like jewelry, furniture, or tools. Under tax laws, businesses must inventory (register) their equipment, tools, and furniture and pay a property tax on it. Household property has no such requirement.

[hack89]

3. I am sure they will find another feel good law to pass that will fix it. Nt

[pipoman]

6. They will likely extend the registry deadline

And use public service announcements to get as much compliance as possible. .or there will be a voter kick back resulting in repeal..

[rgbecker]

4. Just like the bumper sticker says:

Outlaw guns and only criminals will have guns!

Or some bullshit like that.

[cui bono]

153. They didn't outlaw guns. n/t

[spin]

204. They didn't outlaw guns for now. That doesn't mean they will not in the future. (n/t)

[pipoman]

5. depending on the specifics of the law..

Most restrictions imposed by a state will stand up to a SCOTUS challenge, this one sounds like it would.

[aquart]

7. Throw them to the privatized prison industry.

But do not ask me for sympathy for ANYONE who is hiding an assault weapon.

[drynberg]

9. I'd prefer heavy fines per day of law breakage

Bring 'em to their financial knees, or then "book 'em" into privatized pens. We can pay for headstart, food stamps or even unemployment extended benefits with all this fine money...let's go.

[hack89]

13. Law enforcement has bigger issues to deal with

it is not like rifles are being used in a lot of crimes. And lets not forget that the Sandy Hook shooter's rifle was registered.

[rdharma]

26. No it wasn't registered to the Sandy Hook killer!

And you know it.

[hack89]

27. Never said it was - it was registered to his mother

so explain to me how registration stops mass shootings again? I forgot.

[rdharma]

44. Are mass shootings the only kind of gun violence?

Registration could cut down on a lot of gun violence.

Why are you against reasonable and sensible gun regulation?

[hack89]

49. I support all proposed guns law with two exceptions

AWBs and registration. I agree with the ACLU about registration.

Secondly, registration will not stop most gun deaths. It is irrelevant to suicides and accidents while criminals will have a vast pool of illegal unregistered guns to choose from.

[rdharma]

50. Does the ACLU tell you that President Obama is gonna confiscate your guns?

Is that what you're afraid of?

[hack89]

52. No - there is no political will or public sentiment in America to confiscate guns

The president is not a stupid man.

The ACLU opposes registration on privacy grounds.

[rdharma]

57. Then they're probably also against automobile registration.......... right?

[Packerowner740]

58. I think the difference here is that they think the registration of a gun is to track the person

While the registration of a vehicle is a revenue maker and used to track the vehicle, not the owner. In reality we need to track the guns to know where they go and are. At least that's the way I understand it from the way the gun owners put it.

[rdharma]

72. Bingo!

You understand gun registration correctly.

[hack89]

59. Beats me. I just know they oppose gun registration.

by the way - you never actually explained to me how registering semiautomatic rifles would reduce gun deaths (not that there are many due to rifles to start with). Perhaps the ACLU opposes senseless laws that degrade privacy without making anyone safer.

[rdharma]

74. Not many gun deaths by AR-15? Are you kidding?

The AR-15, The rifle used at Webster, Newtown, Clackamas, Aurora, and by the DC Sniper. It's the same gun.

[hack89]

80. Knives, blunt objects and hands/feet kill many more people annually

and again - explain to me how registration would have prevented any of those crimes? Stop evading and answer the question.

[rdharma]

84. How many people would have been killed by the AR-15 equipped mass murderers .............

... if they had been armed with knives, blunt objects and hands/feet?

Don't you feel a bit silly spouting that nonsense?

[hack89]

86. So explain how registration would have prevented those crimes. Come on, you can do it.

Is your point that as long as the deaths are spread out, it doesn't matter as much? Sure sounds like it to me.

[rdharma]

98. Webster!

There you go, buddy!

[hack89]

99. Knew you couldn't. Sandy Hook is particularly difficult to explain, isn't it? nt

[rdharma]

100. Once again....... Webster!

Are you deaf?

[hack89]

107. So a felon who got an illegal gun through a strawman purchase is your example?

so after breaking those laws, you think that he would have turned around and registered his rifle? You do understand that weapons are not registered at the point of sale? You take the weapon home and then mail in a registration form.

And lets not forget the rest of his weapons - killing two men with either a shotgun or a handgun would have been easy.

[rdharma]

110. Yes! Do you think the person who sold him this AR-15 would have done it........

..... if she had to register it?

[hack89]

115. Considering they already had a permanent record of her purchasing the gun

Last edited Wed Feb 12, 2014, 11:42 PM - Edit history (1)

And it did not stop her from giving the gun to a felon, somehow I doubt it. The penalties for failing to register are not any more onerous than the penalties for a straw purchase.

[NM_Birder]

87. Put the sporting stock on it and it's not scary nor dangerous anymore. problem solved.

BTW...do you own a car that is capable of going over 75mph ?

[rdharma]

96. I own a car that will go over 75 mph.

I also own 4 AR-15 type rifles. And I wouldn't mind registering any of them.

So what's your point?

[proudretiredvet]

101. No he is not kidding you a bit

The very real and true statistics are our there and very easily found. Handguns are used in the overwhelming majority of gun violence, not semi-automatic rifles. You are just wrong in that assumption and claim. Argue with real, statistically true, and provable numbers or go home.

Answer me a couple of questions please. In what mass shooting was a legally possessed firearm used and who used them?

Oakland has very tough gun laws, that is a fact. Oakland has a very high gun violence problem, another fact. The people who own the legally guns are not the ones who are doing the violence. The violence is done by those with illegal guns.

Even in a place that has very strict gun laws it is still criminals who ignore the laws and have illegal guns who do the damage.

[rdharma]

103. Oakland?

I'm sorry. But which mass murder are you talking about?

Hard to keep track of all of them, eh?

[proudretiredvet]

114. Oakland is a great example of how strict gun control does not work.

Then we can go on to Chicago and dozens of other cities with very strict gun control laws that do not work.

Thanks for the new question now would you please answer my question to you???

If you can not find it or will not remember it I can ask you again.

[rdharma]

116. Does California have universal gun registration?

Do you have to go through a background check to make a private party purchase of a firearm in Gary, IN?

Now.... what was your question? I'll be glad to answer. Please answer my questions above.

BTW - thought you would find this interesting......

Top 10 sources for firearms purchased within 1 year of crime
For guns recovered in Chicago between Jan. 1, 2008, and March 31, 2012

Store name - # of guns - % of all guns

Chuck's Gun Shop, Riverdale 268 19.49%
Midwest Guns, Lyons 113 8.22%
Westforth Sports, Gary 68 4.95%
Sporting Arms & Supply, Posen 52 3.78%
Pelcher's Shooters Supply, Lansing 46 3.35%
Gat Guns, East Dundee 44 3.20%
Shore Galleries, Lincolnwood 39 2.84%

[proudretiredvet]

181. I'm sure that the ATF was all over these gun stores.

Were any of them charged, fined, or sited for anything?

I'm not sure about Gary but I do know of many states that have that exact law and I support it. All gun purchases should require a back ground check. The next step out is if there should be lists of where each and every gun is located. That answer for me is NO!!! Controlling the guns does nothing. Controlling the criminals and crazes stops crimes.
Did I miss your answer?

[rdharma]

182. You were talking about strict gun controll in CA.

But you forgot to answer my question about gun registration in CA!

I guess you forgot, eh?

[Scootaloo]

154. You're hinging on a nonsense argument

The purpose of law enforcement and its methods is not to prevent crime, but to capture and charge the people who commit the crimes. That is, it's more "pound of cure" than "ounce of prevention," and frankly it has to be in order to function (else you get pretty dystopian results, as we've been seeing in the "War on Terror" in recent years.)

Gun registration doesn't prevent criminal use of guns. It does however make the guns used in crime easier to track, which makes it easier to apprehend the people behind the crime - or at least get a lead on who the gun might have been stolen from (since I know, Nugentian logic holds that all guns used in any crime are all stolen.)

That fact might cause someone to reconsider using their weapon in a criminal manner, but that's more of a side benefit, not the core purpose.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

158. "registration doesn't prevent criminal use of guns...make the guns used in crime easier to track"

If a mass shooting is the pretext of the law just how many mass shootings have there been where we do not know who the perpetrator is?

That fact might cause someone to reconsider using their weapon in a criminal manner, but that's more of a side benefit, not the core purpose.

Mass shooters, it seems, have no fear of consequence and do not expect to escape or survive their rampages.

[rdharma]

183. Registration of original purchase........

....... would sure give "straw dealers" something to think about!

Couple that with a UBC requirement for all firearms transfers.........

This is the way it's done in first-world countries with low rates of gun violence......... INCLUDING Switzerland and Israel!

[hack89]

186. Except there is already a permanent record of the straw purchase

they don't need registration to know who bought the gun - the information already exists.

[rdharma]

187. Please explain how that works...... and what is required of the seller!

You should really check how these things "work" (or don't work) before you post such nonsense!

[hack89]

191. You have a point - registration is useless without UBCs

but any purchase through a FFL will leave a permanent record. A private sale does not leave such a record but then there would be no need for a straw purchaser - without a background check there is nothing stopping the felon from purchasing the gun themselves.

Which is why UBCs should be a higher priority.

[rdharma]

194. Tell me, how do they track the FFL records. Is there a central/easily retrievable repository?

Is there a central/easily retrievable repository for these records?

[hack89]

202. Two step process

1. Manufacturer tells you the FFL. 2. FFL tells you the purchaser.

[rdharma]

205. Oh, that's easy! Computer record? OR.........

Fish through the FFL's paper files?

And after they've traced the original buyer....... as a private seller, he has no need to keep private buyer info. So go pound sand, copper!

[hack89]

208. Ok nt

[spin]

206. Obama will never confiscate firearms even though he has a pen and a telephone. ...

That doesn't mean that it will never be attempted.

If the 1% keep growing wealthier and wealthier and the middle class becomes totally extinct or is just the upper poor class, those with all the money will begin to worry about the fact that all the peasants are armed and restless.

That's when I predict a push for gun confiscation.

[rdharma]

209. Take a "chill pill", dude! nt

Last edited Fri Feb 14, 2014, 10:36 AM - Edit history (1)

That's RW paranoia.

[krispos42]

141. Yeah, because he stole it

I also don't think it was an "assault weapon". Connecticut has had a ban on them since 1994. Before the original Federal ban expired in 2004, Connecticut put it into the state laws, sans expiration date.

The weapon used at Sandy Hook was bought new in 2009, therefore it must not have been an "assault weapon".

So... we have a person killing another to acquire a gun that is not an assault weapon so he can kill a bunch of helpless children trapped in a brick and steel cube.

[rdharma]

142. Whatever it was...... it sure didn't save that "responsible" gun owner...........

....... from her own guns!

[friendly_iconoclast]

149. Were they supposed to, outside of certain straw arguments?

[rdharma]

166. Yes they were supposed to save the "prepper" owner.........

....... who had them for "defense".

[friendly_iconoclast]

189. Heard that from the owner, did you? Interesting.

Perhaps you could tell us more about her, seeing as you knew her and all...

[NM_Birder]

85. change the stock to a sporting model... POOF.. it's no longer an "assault" weapon

[NobodyHere]

12. We should be creating less criminals in this country

Not more.

[TheMathieu]

33. Criminals create themselves when they refuse to comply. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

65. Obey, citizen.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

75. Hell yes!

Obey the law: no murdering, no rape, and no unlicensed murder weapons.

[AngryAmish]

76. The compliance officer will see you now

Let us hope, for everyone's sake that your forms and paperwork are in order.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

81. Do you actually have a point you can articulate, or just silly innuendo?

I have a point that I can articulate: this is a good law, that will make people safer, and therefor people refusing to obey it should be punished.

[AngryAmish]

83. It is stated, very clearly, in Title IV, Section 3, Subsection b

Paragraph e the compliance requirements to comply with Commission Rule 7.2, paragraph d as it intersects with Executive Order 17334 as well with the the regulatory orders therein. If one refuses to comply, since the c rules are clearly written in The Register, which is publically available from the hours 8:30 am to 4:30 pm Monday through Friday except for legal holidays....

[Donald Ian Rankin]

111. A simple "no" would have sufficed... N.T.

[AngryAmish]

122. This is the deal:

Each and every of the appropriate forms are available both at the county office as well as online if one goes to the township website, go to search box, type in the necessary and appropriate search terms then the manditory forms, in both pdf and . dc ox format, which allows every citizen to comply with Article XIV, Group 7, Section 1, Subsection 3, Paragraph B.

It is really that simple.

If you can't deal with that then one deserves to go to the stoney lonesome

[Donald Ian Rankin]

147. Guns kill 30,000 people a year, and your mocking those who try to tackle that?

And tell the pleasant prince this mock of his
Hath turn'd his balls to gun-stones; and his soul
Shall stand sore charged for the wasteful vengeance
That shall fly with them: for many a thousand widows
Shall this his mock mock out of their dear husbands;
Mock mothers from their sons, mock castles down;
And some are yet ungotten and unborn
That shall have cause to curse the Dauphin's scorn.

[friendly_iconoclast]

185. If an attempt to tackle gun crime is poorly thought out, it SHOULD be mocked

[Donald Ian Rankin]

193. Yes, but it should be mocked for being inadequate, not excessive. N.T.

[friendly_iconoclast]

196. Fighting gun crime by making what was legal and harmed none a crime...

...is idiotic, not 'inadequate'.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

198. Legal yes, harmed no-one no.

There are 30k gun deaths in America every year.

Good gun control would reduce that number massively. Registration alone wouldn't, but it would be a tiny step in the right direction.

[friendly_iconoclast]

199. You *are* aware that guns harm no one without human intervention, no?

Given the fact that rifles used by humans kill fewer people in the US than
feet, fists, and knives used by the same group, I'd say "idiotic" is a perfect descriptor of this law.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

213. Did you just make that claim up out of thin air?

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate, there are about 14,000 murders in the USA every year.

There are about 30,000 gun deaths in the USA every year.

So unless there are an incredible number of accidental fatal stabbings, your claim is way, way out.

[friendly_iconoclast]

215. I said *rifles*, which are indeed rarely used in crime- so sayeth the Feds

In fact, rifles are rather underrepresented in crime statistics, given the percentage of
long guns as a part of all firearms in the US. You need not take my word for it
- a reading of the FBI's 'Crime in The United States' reports will confirm this:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2008-2012.xls

Which raises an obvious question:

If the State of Connecticut was so concerned about gun deaths, why didn't they seek to restrict
handguns instead of (or along with) rifles?

One wonders about the mindset of those who favor symbolism over efficiacy...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

112. "unlicensed murder weapons."

It parodies itself.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

113. You know what's really ridiculous - to the point of being beyond parody?

When two teenagers with black trenchcoats and assault weapons committed a massacre in Columbine, the response was to crack down on black trenchcoats.

An assault weapon has no purpose except to kill people with, and they fulfill that purpose very well indeed. They should be banned outright; registering them is a step in the right direction, and that people are opposing even that grossly inadequate measure that would be comic if it weren't so tragic.

[NutmegYankee]

118. "a step in the right direction"

What's the next step?

[friendly_iconoclast]

120. More incremental criminalization, 'tho they're reluctant to actually admit it...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

145. I am? See #144.

Here in the UK, we have some of the best gun control in the world. The US's approach to guns is insane and shameful, and leads to ten thousand needless deaths a year, give or take a power of two.

[friendly_iconoclast]

150. You're excused, then. I was referring more to our homegrown prohibitionists

[One_Life_To_Give]

176. How has your (UK) Murder rates changed since 1900?

Looks to me like your murder rates are unchanged since before the first gun control law was written?

[stevenleser]

211. And how does that compare to the US in the same period? Your attempt at a point fails.

Cities have become more dense, weapons have become more powerful, have larger magazines, etc.

[One_Life_To_Give]

214. Arizona Territory or Boston?

IIRC The Arizona Territory peaked at over 200 murders per 100,000. While the east coast cities had rates more consistent with today. Curiously at the same time of virtually no gun laws we see rates of Murder and Violence at dramatically different levels between US Territories, Eastern Cities and the UK.

I don't think England ever had a US style love affair with the "Wild West". Culturally they are in a different place than the US is. That culture perhaps means they don't desire the Weapons nor have a willingness to use them. The Laws don't make them safe, they serve to prevent parts of US Culture from crossing the pond.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

144. Do you mean "should be" or "will be"?

Should be: repeal the 2nd amendment, introduce UK-style gun control, watch gun deaths plummet.
Will be: vacillate, equivocate, continue to view gun ownership as a right, watch gun deaths remain high.

[hack89]

119. So you want to ban semiautomatic rifles?

Even though handguns kill many more people? Why are you giving handguns a pass?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

146. I am? See #144. N.T.

[hack89]

164. I get a kick how divorced from American cultural and political reality

Last edited Thu Feb 13, 2014, 10:07 AM - Edit history (1)

so many anti- gunners are.

[Hoyt]

170. I don't give handguns a pass. They need relegating to locked rooms in your home.

Last edited Thu Feb 13, 2014, 12:27 PM - Edit history (1)

But, banning or restricting other weapons will help reduce availability of handguns. So-called "assault weapons" keep gun stores in business and the yahoos that go there buy handguns to go with their assault weapons.

Gotta start somewhere weaning you guys off these foul things.

[hack89]

172. Thanks for your help and support

it is greatly appreciated.

[Hoyt]

173. Anytime. I love you guys, just not your guns.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

159. From the OP, anywhere from 50, 000 to 350,000 weapons -- in this 1 state -- remain unregistered

It is ridiculous to claim hundreds of thousands of people living in Connecticut (meaning millions nationwide) have no purpose on their minds except murder.

And if these decent people refuse to register because their political opposites are authoritarian hysterics who have no arguments except grotesque lies and fear-mongering then they obviously aren't crazy, they probably have the most sober assessment of the situation.

[NM_Birder]

91. Apply that BS logic to immigration.

kind of a fuzzy line between Criminals refusing to comply" and a BS law ..... huh ?

[Bettie]

14. A "Responsible Gun Owner" would have followed the law.

So, I can only believe that those who haven't registered theirs are not responsible.

Irresponsible people do not follow laws.

They're not 'new' criminals, they are people who chose to be criminals.

[sybylla]

23. Took the words out of my mouth.

As a responsible gun owner, I would have done what was necessary to follow the law. At this point, anyone who has not registered their weapons is irresponsible. And probably willfully flouting the law.

[aikoaiko]

174. Ain't civil disobedience grand?

[Shamash]

15. OP is correct

The OP did say it best. People who had not broken any laws nor harmed anyone by doing nothing, are now by continuing to do nothing, guilty of a felony. Not sure why anyone thought that was a good idea. Was there some precedent where that sort of thing worked out well?

Worse, how are you going to enforce it? If they are unregistered, you do not know who has them, so the only way they will surface is if they are used in a crime or there is an accident or negligence that can be traced back to one. Even if the police had gun store records to track original purchasers, that purchaser could simply say "I sold it a while ago" and there would be no way to disprove this nor is it probable cause to get a search warrant, and any jurisdiction that tried it would have the ACLU all over their case, standing side-by-side with the NRA on the issue (stranger things have happened).

For criminals who would not have registered them anyway, this is not going to change anything. For everyone else, the rate of misuse of this type is less than 1 in 1000 over the lifetime of the weapon, so over the next 100 years we could reasonably expect to see no more than 350 of those 350 thousand unregistered weapons get pulled out of circulation by being exposed in this way.

Not a very smart law on the whole, as well as being so badly written that it considers possession of plastic accessories to be legally equivalent to possession of a fully working assault weapon (with mandatory jail time measured in years).

[dsc]

16. How about 100 years in prison is your weapon

is unregistered and used to commit a crime. I bet we would see some compliance then. Many of the very same people who refuse to obey this law are the very ones who clamor for three strikes laws that cause people who steal a candy bar to go away for life.

[hack89]

18. Considering how rarely rifles are used in crimes

I am not sure that is much of a threat. And lets not forget that the Sandy Hook shooters guns were registered so lets not think registration is going to make anyone safer.

[Lurks Often]

20. How about a realistic solution?

or do you really think "100 years in prison if your weapon is unregistered and used to commit a crime." will first, ever have a chance of passing through the legislature as a law and second, hold up to judicial scrutiny?

[dsc]

30. why wouldn't it hold up to judicial scrutiny

we have laws permitting death for getaway drivers even if they don't know the person in the car is going to kill someone, life in prison for a third strike even if the third strike is for shoplifting, and I could go on.

[Shamash]

37. Since you've been living under a rock (on a different planet)

A 100 year sentence for a first offense of simple possession of an unregistered assault rifle would be more than the maximum penalty for similar possession of an illegal truckload of dynamite (10 years) with an anti-tank rocket propped on top (10 years). So, while your suggestion might be reasonable on planet Xenu, rest assured it would be considered extreme by American courts.

Plus of course, your tacit (and idiotic) approval of life in prison for a third strike for shoplifting, since you did use that as a justification for your authoritarian nonsense, and conflating simple possession of an object with no criminal intent to being an accessory to murder.

That's the way to hold up the liberal standard and make us all proud of sharing an ideology with you. Just being in your presence makes me feel like I'm in church.

Westboro Baptist Church.

[rdharma]

46. Intentionally not complying with the law IS criminal intent.

And I have no sympathy for criminals.

[Shamash]

51. ^Man who has no sympathy for someone wanting to sit in the front of the bus

[rdharma]

55. That post doesn't even make sense.

What does that mean in English?

[Packerowner740]

60. I think he/she is trying to make some connection between guns an

Blacks back in the 50s, 60s that did not want to be forced to sit in the back of the bus.

[rdharma]

67. Of course! What Rosa Parks did is exactly like some RW gun-hugger breaking the law!

Wow! Why couldn't I see that? The comparison is obvious!

[Hoyt]

73. Just another gun fancier feeling "discriminated" against, and willing to use real civil rights

heroines/heroes' names in their promotion of more gunz in more places.

The poor, pitiful plight of the gun culture is so sad.

[Shamash]

62. In English, your answer was all-purpose bigotry

You made two short and very unambiguous statements:

1) Intentionally not complying with the law is criminal intent
2) You have no sympathy for criminals

Therefore, you have no sympathy for Rosa Parks. Your statement was so broad and so absolute that it makes no exception for bad laws nor for good reason for breaking them. That the definition of "assault rifle" is entirely arbitrary and that inaction somehow becomes a felony makes no difference to you (I could understand it being a fine or civil infraction, but a felony?). It is a narrow-minded authoritarian viewpoint that assumes because something is the law, it is inherently "good". Much like trying to marry someone of a different race or having an abortion or merely being an atheist or homosexual or used to be inherently criminal, your statements say with no hesitation that you would have supported those laws too.

You can either stand behind exactly what you said and look like a total ass, or walk it back to mere selective and hypocritical intolerance and look like mostly an ass. Theoretically, you could repudiate it, however this would require an ability to learn from your mistakes.

[rdharma]

71. Who do you think you're fooling?

[TheSarcastinator]

77. U sur no lgoc reel gud

nut et al a falss anal ogy. U r brillnt!1!!!!1!

[madinmaryland]

104. Huh??? The only bigots are the gun-owners themselves. They were and still are

more interested in keeping the Rosa Parks of the world down.

Bigots.

[friendly_iconoclast]

121. -1 for trying to rewrite history. Rosa Parks owned guns and made no bones about it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/http:/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x337407

Rosa Parks was an armed. No surprise from this Cracker.


Tim Tyson, Visiting Professor at Duke Divinity School, did a little "myth-busting" on NPR's "On The Media" last year, saying this about the fabled civil rights leader Rosa Parks:

"There's a sense in which Mrs. Parks is very important to our post-civil rights racial narrative, because we really want a kind of sugar-coated civil rights movement that's about purity and interracial non-violence. And so we don't really want to meet the real Rosa Parks. We don't, for example, want to know that in the late 1960s, Rosa Parks became a black nationalist and a great admirer of Malcolm X. I met Rosa Parks at the funeral of Robert F. Williams, who had fought the Ku Klux Klan in North Carolina with a machine gun in the late 1950s and then fled to Cuba, and had been a kind of international revolutionary icon of black power. Ms. Parks delivered the eulogy at his funeral. She talks in her autobiography and says that she never believed in non-violence and that she was incapable of that herself, and that she kept guns in her home to protect her family. But we want a little old lady with tired feet. You may have noticed we don't have a lot of pacifist white heroes. We prefer our black people meek and mild, I think."

http://www.onthemedia.org/story/132892-tabula-rosa/transcript/

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/02/opinion/blow-rosa-parks-revisited.html?_r=0

"Rosa Parks, Revisited"

...On the verge of the 100th anniversary of her birth this Monday comes a fascinating new book, “The Rebellious Life of Mrs. Rosa Parks,” by Jeanne Theoharis, a Brooklyn College professor. It argues that the romanticized, children’s-book story of a meek seamstress with aching feet who just happened into history in a moment of uncalculated resistance is pure mythology.

As Theoharis points out, “Rosa’s family sought to teach her a controlled anger, a survival strategy that balanced compliance with militancy.”

Parks was mostly raised by her grandparents. Her grandfather, a follower of Marcus Garvey, often sat vigil on the porch with a rifle in case the Klan came. She sometimes sat with him because, as the book says she put it, “I wanted to see him kill a Ku Kluxer.”...

...Rosa married Raymond Parks, a civil rights activist who sometimes carried a gun and who impressed her because, she said, “he refused to be intimidated by white people.”

Meek, mild, and unarmed- even if they really weren't...

[kcr]

123. No. The fact she had guns doesn't mean comparing Rosa Parks and the civil rights movement

to RKBA is valid or even remotely appropriate.

[friendly_iconoclast]

124. Ms. Parks fought for the Fourteenth Amendment rights of all, and sometimes exercised...

...her Second Amendment rights to do so. She also was surrounded by other African-Americans
who did the same (note the citations in my edited post).

And no, infringing the Constitution is not okay because you're only doing it a
teensy bit at a time via incremental criminalization...

[kcr]

127. Just because you claim something infringing on a constitutional right doesn't make it so.

And comparing an agenda to the civil rights movement and dragging Rosa Parks into it just because she owned guns is scraping the bottom of the barrel. If Ted Nugent uses a tactic, you should really question if it's something you should be doing as well.

[friendly_iconoclast]

128. Umm, the DU cite was from 2010, long before Nugent ever mentioned her

And arguably long before he'd ever even heard of her...

Nice try at the associational fallacy, but you're really going to have to step up
your game.

[kcr]

131. Ummmmmmm, I stand by my point

This is a favorite Ted Nugent talking point. No associational fallacy about it. Just because someone's thought of it before doesn't make it any better. He sure loves this talking point. That absolutely would give me pause. But have at this ridiculously awful talking on its own merits even without considering the input of Mr Shit His Pants if you like.

[friendly_iconoclast]

138. You say "No associational fallacy about it." and continue talking about Nugent...

Since you're going with that appproach, what's your take on these?
It will be interesting to see how you apply it to those whose opinions
in re guns you share:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172133670

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117215365#post44

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117215365#post67

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=24594

[kcr]

139. No, I pretty much said to feel free to believe the crappy right wing nutty talking point

on its own merits if you like. I don't see how I kept talking about Nugent except to call him a name

[friendly_iconoclast]

152. Nugent is an ignoramous who didn't know Parks was pretty hard Left...

...by the time she died, and was never the meek and mild type.

What's your excuse?

[kcr]

162. What's MY excuse? I think you're confused. I'm not the one who buys the idiot talking point.

You are.

[dsc]

70. I don't approve of life in prison for shoplifting

but the SCOTUS did, explicitly, when it upheld a three strikes case involving exactly that. I just think those conservatives who beg for those laws, as I would be willing to bet the vast majority of these gun owners are, should have to live under that type of regime too.

[Lurks Often]

39. I noticed you skipped the part about getting it through the legislature

, but to address your response, I doubt 100 years in prison if an un-registered weapon is used in a crime will hold up in court. Probably get struck down as unusually harsh or cruel and unusual punishment.

[rdharma]

47. Where is this "mandatory" 100 years in prison coming from?

Is that written into the CT law?

[Bazinga]

38. To quote the best football movie of all time...

"Does the term cruel and unusual punishment mean ANYTHING to you?"

[Lurks Often]

17. The State of CT is unlikely do anything

If someone who didn't register one of the required guns comes to law enforcement's attention for a different reason, I'm sure they'll tack on the Class D felony, but I don't see the state doing anything else. There remains some question if the rank & file police officer are even willing to perform raids on people who did not register, similar to those upstate NY Sheriff's who have refused to enforce the NY SAFE Act.

It is arguably politically damaging to have so many people allegedly refuse to comply with a law. It would be politically devastating if law enforcement refused to carry out orders to arrest the people who failed to comply.

Malloy did not win the last election by a very large margin and with him up for re-election this year, a GOTV by gun owners in CT could cost him the election.

[Shamash]

25. Exactly

A law that cannot be enforced will not be respected. That part of the law cannot be realistically enforced and it is probably safe to assume that anyone not following it is also not going to vote for a legislator who voted to make them a criminal nor an executive who signed that act into law.

[Eleanors38]

31. This is a pot-prohibition wet noodle legalism...

The credibility of and respect for the law will suffer.

[Lurks Often]

40. The law is a joke to anybody who actually understands how firearms works

would agree. The Washington Navy Yard shooting proved that it is the shooter and the police response times, mostly, not the weapon, that determines the number of deaths.

[TheSarcastinator]

88. another brilliant gun humping response

Anyone who thinks sensible gun control is the way to go just doesn't "understand how firearms work".

My old Humanities instructor used to repeat "man is the measure of all things". It's terrific that you clowns use your little bullet-spewing erectile aids to gauge everything instead.

[Lurks Often]

94. What's so brilliant is that your argument is so pathetic

that you have to resort to insults and psychological nonsense. It's ALWAYS the anti-gun gun crowd that equates sex with firearms. That's weird and really kind of sick. Sounds like you're the one who has the issues with sex and firearms.

Sensible gun control is keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals and people adjudicated as mentally ill, not passing meaningless laws that wouldn't have prevented the tragedy from happening in the first place.

[RiffRandell]

19. Great. nt

[Capt. Obvious]

21. Good

[CTyankee]

24. why is this in GD? Shouldn't it go straight to RKBA?

[The Straight Story]

29. It is about legislation, not a shooting

Guessing since shootings are allowed here actual politics and legislation would be something people want to discuss since it affects everyone.

[Eleanors38]

34. Some idiot didn't shoot himself in the foot in Macon? You're right!

[CTyankee]

66. Wow, haven't seen you in these parts since maybe never, Eleanors38!

Ya'lls don't get out that much...

[Eleanors38]

135. Where you been? Dark corner? They're turning out the lights.

[CTyankee]

143. durn, musta missed that...but I think you might like it here...

in GD we talk about lots of different things...there are pix of kittehs, I just did a movie review of Monuments Men, lots of political stuff (other than guns) like Obamacare and this governor named Chris Christie and sneering at the GOP on LOTS of subjects...quite an assortment...we have fun!

[Eleanors38]

165. Glad you joined us.

[CTyankee]

168. class of 2004 here...glad you came on board a couple of years later!

but I do natter on...I'll let you get back to tending to your collection...

[hack89]

41. Guns are allowed in GD. Didn't you get the memo? nt

[albino65]

28. If they don't register...

They are what they are.

[TheMathieu]

32. Solution: Comply with the law. nt

[NM_Birder]

90. All laws ? EVERY CITIZEN ?

You got the coconuts to apply your "Comply with the law" logic to immigration ?
bet not.

[joeybee12]

35. "who have broken no other laws..."

Nice editorializing...yeah, we know that for sure...traffic laws, anything else...apaprently the dipshit who wrote this knows exactly who all those 20,000 are...what crap journalism.

[Gormy Cuss]

64. The crap journalism started with the headline

CT didn't create criminals unless they passed this law in secret and made an effort to keep it a secret. Those who have not complied with the law made themselves criminals.

[joeybee12]

68. You're right...this "journalist" clearly has an agenda...nt

[CTyankee]

148. How dare we in CT pass such a law!

boy, I get the feeling that this cuts real deep to some folks...we actually stood up and did something in CT after the event that shocked us out of our complacency. We had to act. Common decency demanded it.

[Nye Bevan]

42. Sorry, but that's how gun control works. And don't most of us want gun control?

When gun control regulations are enacted, people need to comply with them. At one time in the UK it was legal for a private citizen to own a handgun, but if you are found in possession of one today you will go to prison.

I'm fine with giving people plenty of time to learn about and comply with new laws, but if they refuse to do so, they are criminals.

[lastlib]

43. I say, round 'em up & horse-whip 'em

[Lizzie Poppet]

45. This just in: people often blow off pointless, seldom-enforced laws.

Registration is largely security theater, particularly when limited to a class of weapons that doesn't commonly appear in crime. That general uselessness alone will make it a low priority with law enforcement. Attempting to enact draconian penalties will only bolster the arguments of those who assert that registration is a gateway to eventual prohibition.

The question of whether or not to comply with registration edicts is presently moot to me: I don't live in a state that registers firearms, nor is such legislation likely to pass here in Oregon; even liberal-leaning Western states tend to have fewer firearms restrictions. I'd certainly oppose such a proposals here (although I actively support other measures, such as universal background checks), as I do all pointless, feel-good legislation.

[rdharma]

48. Some folks drive too fast in school zones too. ntl

[Hoyt]

53. Ha. So gun owners aren't as "law-abiding" as they try to tell us. Are you really surprised?

[The Straight Story]

54. So if they outlaw abortion and women still have them?

Will you take the same attitude?

Betting you change your stripes real fast.

[Hoyt]

56. Women don't use the "I'm law-abiding" ruse. But nice try. Fact is, gun fanciers are

law-abiding only as long as they can fondle and carry as many gunz as they want.

Any sign of restrictions, and you see posts in gungeon about how they will tell law enforcement that they don't have their guns anymore because they were in a boat that sank. Cracks me up when a gun fancier says they are "responsible, or law-abiding" as they strap one or two on to venture out to Chuck E Cheese. They may be adhering to the letter of the law (enacted by NRA and right wingers), but they sure are acting against society's best interest.

[Shamash]

63. Was his question too difficult to reply to?

It seemed pretty clear and straightforward to me. Certainly not worthy of a full paragraph of deflection.

[Hoyt]

69. I did not deflect. His question had nothing to do with issue. Abortions and gunz are hardly similar

But, then, gun fanciers are seldom rational in their promotion of more gunz in more places.

Fact is, gun fanciers are always telling us how law-abiding they are. That's a crock as the OP indicates. Gun fanciers are "law abiding" as long as the laws allow them to accumulate and carry unfettered.

So, where do you fall on the "gunz are my god given right continuum, no matter the impact upon society" continuum?

[The Straight Story]

78. For YOU it is about guns. For others it is about rights.

I know some don't want people to have rights and they should only be held by those in government and the wealthy.

But others of us see rights and choice as core issues.

I have noted many times that ninety-nine+ percent of gun owners don't cause problems. More and more laws won't fix the problem because the problem rotates around a small minority of our population.

Your solutions seem to center around more laws for people who are already obeying laws and making more criminals. We have laws about shooting people, threatening them, using guns in crimes in general, and so on. The people ignoring all of those really aren't going to be affected by more laws at this point.

But then, some people don't want to get to the root of the problem. They want to punish everyone else who does not make the same choices they are in life.

Take rights from the citizens and hand them over to other citizens who happen to have a job working for the government (or allowing a select few to have guns that the wealthy can afford to hire to protect them).

Yeah, sorry, that is not my idea of freedom or being progressive.

[Hoyt]

82. Allowing a bunch of gun fanciers to arm up, ain't progressive.

[friendly_iconoclast]

126. And that's what it boils down to: You don't like it

[Hoyt]

133. Only those addicted to the dang things and/or right wingers like it,

[friendly_iconoclast]

134. There's that "poisioning the well" thing, again...

[Hoyt]

136. There's that you don't care what gunz do to society, as long as you have yours.

[friendly_iconoclast]

137. There's that "strawman" thing, again...

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

That I don't share your view about what guns do and do not do to society doesn't
mean that I have no concerns whatsoever.

If I wanted to be preached at by someone that claims to have a lock on The Truth I'll pick one
of the local houses of worship and not DU...

[Hoyt]

157. Do your state's gun laws allow one to tote in church?

[Travis_0004]

160. My state does

And its saved a few lives since being implemented.

http://www.goupstate.com/article/20120325/ARTICLES/120329781/1112

[Hoyt]

169. I'm not sure any of those incidents required a gun, but gun fanciers do think it's the only way to

handle situations. And of course, if the "bad guy" had not had a gun in his auto, there wouldn't have been a situation in the first place.

People handle robbers with gunz, knives, etc., all the time without needing a gun themselves. Heck, there have been a number of incidents where elderly ladies take down a man with a gun, Loughner being a good example.

But hey, if you are a gun fancier, clearly you think your gun is the only way to handle things. And, you are not likely to care about the criminal who wields a gun, the little kid that shoots a friend, the bully who intimidates people, etc., as long as you have yours.

[friendly_iconoclast]

197. "...gun fanciers do think it's the only way...". More telepsychology, Hoyt?

I'm going to go ahead call you on that one:

You have no more idea about what someone else thinks (unless they've publicly expressed
their sentiments) than a religious fundamentalist 'knows' what God wants.

The most anyone (yes, even you, Hoyt) can say is that a gun is a way
to handle a situation.

There's been enough straw spread in this thread to mulch a couple of quarter sections

[TheSarcastinator]

89. awesome and brilliant argument!

Ability to own all the unregistered guns & assault weapons I want = the civil rights struggle.

I look forward to seeing how that analogy works out for you. Carry on, brave freedumb fighter.

[friendly_iconoclast]

125. That would have been a snappy reply if that was what he had actually said

What it actually is:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

[Donald Ian Rankin]

155. Gun ownership should not be a right, any more than driving a car is.

Most countries get this right, America gets it wrong.

[sked14]

167. That's your opinion,

and you're welcome to it, however, the majority of Americans disagree with you and the rest of the world.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

175. I think you've just come up with the Universal Response.

It's not merely true in this case, it's true of most left-wing opinions, sadly.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to change their minds, though.

[sked14]

177. Good luck.

This country has a long history of gun ownership and I don't see it changing anytime soon.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

178. Nor me - I'm entirely aware I'm tilting at windmills here. N.T.

[sked14]

179. FWIW, here are my ideas on gun control

1. Universal Background Checks, all firearms, handguns and rifles, should go through an FFL dealer background check.

2. Safe storage laws in the home when children are present and meaningful penalties for negligent deaths as a result of non compliance of such laws.

3. Mandatory training for the lawful use of firearms before first purchase.

4. Beef up the BATFE to go after corrupt dealers and citizens.

5. Strict regulations for CCW, IE: rigorous training on the lawful use firearms for self defense and the consequences of using said firearms.

6. National registration with the caveat that the database can never be used for confiscation.

7. Mag limits of 10 for handguns and 30 for long rifles. What's good for the govt. should be good for private citizens.

8. Repeal of all SYG laws, Castle Doctrine is quite sufficient for citizens.

9. I'm always open to reasonable gun control laws.

[NM_Birder]

92. immigration.......another one

Perfect example where the "law" is part of the problem not the solution.

[MO_Moderate]

61. Sigh, just more ammo for Republicans

Hopefully pro 2nd Amendment groups will set up some kind of defense fund.

[seveneyes]

79. We don't need gun owner votes anyway

Just keep making feel good laws that do nothing to stop the real problem of bad people with guns. That's the ticket.

[NM_Birder]

93. how bout a "war on guns" working well with drugs right ?

[TheSarcastinator]

95. so registering firearms = a "war on guns"?

Hyperbole and twaddle.

[NM_Birder]

105. LOL...

No, the poster I responded to sounded like he had a sense of humor, you either don't, or didn't get it.
Either way, thanks for the laugh, the word "twaddle" is always good for a chuckle, especially when used with "hyperbole".

[friendly_iconoclast]

130. Hardly hyperbole- there's quite a few that would like to go all Harry J. Anslinger on guns

And we all know what a success the War on (Some) Drugs has been...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

180. How about nail-bombs?

Clearly, since banning or restricting anything, ever, is analogous to the War on Drugs, we should legalise those, too.

Guns have a lot more in common with nail bombs than with drugs.

[friendly_iconoclast]

184. Nail bombs are 'destructive devices', even the NRA supports regulation of those

And given the fact that no one here has advocated abolition of gun laws,
your first sentence has a lot more in common with one of these:




than anything I said...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

192. Nonsense.

You compared gun control to the war on drugs.

I pointed out that that was a daft analogy.

No straw man here, thanks.

[friendly_iconoclast]

195. They are the same- an attempt to criminalize what was previously legal...

...with a healthy serving of moral panic served alongside...

[TheSarcastinator]

97. you do realize that the vast majority of Americans

support common sense gun control measures like registration and background checks, right?

[NutmegYankee]

106. No poll have ever shown majority support for registration.

Backgrounds checks on the other hand...

[hack89]

108. Background checks yes. Registration no. nt

[rdharma]

102. Oh, I think the Republican party needs the gun-hugger vote.......

.... is that what you meant?

[Demo_Chris]

109. Silly laws like this do nothing but hurt us politically. nt

[aikoaiko]

129. The only logical next step is to "ban teh gunz!"

[friendly_iconoclast]

132. Many would like that, but most are too mealymouthed to admit it...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

156. Not going to happen, sadly.

Yes, repealing the 2nd and introducing sane gun laws would be a good idea.

No, it's not going to happen. See how much ruckus even this tiny step in the right direction causes, even on DU.

[Demo_Chris]

163. Well said. Even here on DU we are split on the issue. nt

[alcibiades_mystery]

140. Every single gun used in a crime began as a legal gun; every criminal's gun was once owned

by a legal, "law-abiding" gun owner.

Every single one.

There is no massive black market gun manufacturer. There are only legal gun manufacturers who legally own their guns, and usually sell them legally to other wholesale and retail legal gun owners.

And yet - even by the gunner shitheads' own admission - criminals have, well, shitloads of guns. How? because they "stole" them all? In home burglaries? By knocking over the "gun truck?" Factory theft?

BULLSHIT.

Legal guns enter the illicit market by way of legal gun owners. They sell them and sell them and sell them. They trade them for goods and services, legal and illegal. Either at the wholesale or the retail level, legal gun owners funnel their guns into the illicit market. That's why they cry foul over registration - which only asks that they inform society of the status of their guns. Because they are, in fact, already criminals.

Gunner shitheads aren't fooling anyone. This isn't about 'freedom' - except for the ones who are truly pathetic dupes of the gun manufacturers - and many are indeed dumb enough to be just that. They're the one's screaming about liberty. The rest are indeed criminals and enablers funneling guns on to the illicit market, then having the fucking gall to point at the illicit market they themselves create as justification for their own depravities. Fuck them sideways. A felony is right goddamn on for these creeps.

[Travis_0004]

161. So why is gun crime in England going up?

A country with very strict gun laws. A lot less legal guns in the country before a ban on handguns was enacted.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-154307/Gun-crime-soars-35.html

[cui bono]

151. Um no... the people who didn't register are creating the "newly minted criminals"

It's pretty easy to do, it's their own damn fault if they're too lazy or defiant.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

171. Meh. That's their problem, not mine. nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

188. So, y'all are cool with arresting all undocumented migrants?

The hypocrisy, it's blatant...

[friendly_iconoclast]

190. Or busting people for cannabis possession in states where it's still illegal?

[rdharma]

201. No! No documented death caused by cannabis.

You got any more "red herrings"?

[rdharma]

200. No! They aren't killing weapons. nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

203. Gotta love situational ethics, the zealot's friend...

[rdharma]

207. Huh? You're kidding! Right?

They aren't really designed for killing, eh?

[Populist_Prole]

210. I don't like laws that criminalize people with a stroke of a pen. Think of where it could lead.

Last edited Thu Feb 13, 2014, 10:15 PM - Edit history (1)

Plus, who gets to define what an assault weapon is. It's like trying to stop drunk driving by raising the drinking age or lowering the legal BAC limit.

Yeah, I'm a pro-gun progressive.

[Gravitycollapse]

212. "Yeah, I'm a pro-gun progressive." - That's all you needed to say, honestly.

Since criminalizing certain groups is fundamental to legally defined forms of criminality.

For instance, passing a law making rape a criminal offense effectively criminalizes tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or even millions of individuals at a time. Are you as opposed to such a law because it has broad reaching legal and personal consequence?

My guess is probably not. Which illuminates your argument as fallacious.

Now, if you want to debate the specific merit of criminalizing gun owners who fail to register specific types of firearms, by all means let's have such a debate. But you cannot dismiss the function of law because it suits your specific motive.