CT CAGV Dissenter’s Open Letter: Just Say NO to “Assault Weapon” Amnesty

(courtesy newtown.patch.com)

This is an open letter to the elected officials of Connecticut and concerned citizens:

I am a long-time supporter, financially and morally, of CT Against Gun Violence and have applauded their accomplishments in the last legislative session. The new gun law was a triumph of common sense and the law should be allowed to stand unchanged. Simply put, we can not allow any amnesty nor leniency for owners of automatic weapons and high capacity clips . . .

Earlier this week, I received an email from CAGV that has me distressed. Apparently, the organization wishes to support a limited amnesty for gun owners who have either intentionally or unintentionally ignored the registration deadline at the end of December. In exchange, CAGV proposes other tweaks to the law that seem too technical to matter much.

I am against this proposal and I am writing today to implore all of our elected officials to block any sort of “amnesty” for owners of automatic assault weapons or high capacity clips. These items are a menace to your culture and it should be left to the courts to decide if changes to the law are warranted, not political back scratching.

Our best in the nation law was passed last spring and these people have had many months during which to get their act together and submit the required forms. Offering those who were too lazy or too stupid to comply in the allotted time a window during which to register their now illegal assault weapons and clips is an insult. Ignorance of the law and/or a belated sense of concern about being caught is no reason to change the law. Let these “law abiding citizens” reap what they have sown and leave the ban as it is.

That John McKinney and other Republicans seems to be supporting this “amnesty” should be seen for the political act that it is. McKinney has learned that his noble support of the new law has soured the GOP base against him and he is seeking to get back in their good graces. As residents of Connecticut we should not allow McKinney and other worried/vulnerable Republicans to shore up their support with the GOP gun owners at the expense of the rule of law.

No amnesty, no leniency, no exceptions. Voters are watching you Hartford. And the CAGV membership is watching its leadership.

I am a CAGV dissenter.

[h/t: ctsheepdog]

comments

  1. avatar pwrserge says:

    Yup… Have fun rounding up the 95% of assault weapons owners who laughed in your face, your tyrannical piece of shit. Make sure to bring a body bag for them to put your worthless carcass into when they are done.

    1. avatar Anmut says:

      Let me paint a picture of the conception of this letter:

      A person, indistinguishable in sex, sits in a small apartment. The smell of high-grade Starbucks coffee rules the air. A cat cleans his scrotum in the distance. Beads of sweat are at the near-dripping stage on our letter writer’s head. They bang away with furious anger at the keyboard of their Apple laptop.

      A high pressure snort-grunt rings out as each sentence has it’s period attached. The letter writing person pauses to glance up at the inverted cross hanging on the wall and curses the name of Sarah Palin.

      Now, the letter complete – our writer checks to make sure all they inaccuracies and hyperbole are included as they wished. The writer, takes a Hope & Change button from it’s warm hiding spot in their bra and, using the pin, draws blood and casually signs their name.

      The apartment shakes, thunder claps and the writer cackles in a high-pitched whine… “If they like their assault weapon ban – they can keep it!” Muhahahaha!

      1. avatar Eric says:

        “A cat cleans his scrotum in the distance.”

        It’s the little things that underscore the pretentious and the pompously-mundane. I am so stealing that satirical line. Bravo.

        1. avatar Rick says:

          In my mind this type of person would have a neutered cat.

        2. avatar Salty Bear says:

          Yea for a second I thought you meant that there was a cat cleaning the writer’s scrotum.

        3. avatar Gary Schulze says:

          Rick, “a neutered and declawed cat.”

        4. avatar slicer87 says:

          Claws are a weapon, can’t allow any cat to have them, for the children! Better defang them too.

        5. avatar JohnO says:

          For second there, I wasn’t sure which scrotum we were talking about.

      2. avatar KMc says:

        Now that’s funny! And probably has happened more than I care to think about.

      3. avatar CTsheepdog says:

        Wait, not any ordinary cat but a RESCUE CAT that has been newly neutered, just like the way such a writer likes the males in her life.

        Seriously, I nearly peed my pants reading that. Thanks!

      4. avatar Azman says:

        What a horrible mess of stereotypes.

        1. avatar Samuel Leoon Suggs says:

          Boo hoo: stereotypes are funny.

      5. avatar Jeff says:

        You mean, It’s Pat?

        1. avatar Dolan Duck says:

          No. It’s Ron Pinciero , director if CAGV

      6. avatar FoRealz? says:

        You forgot the part where they cap off the evening by furiously masturbating with gluten free Cheetos cheese stained fingers to FBook photos of Moms Want Some Action members.

        Other than that, bravo!

        1. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

          So this is the perfect liberal prose?

          Is that kinda like “You never even called me by my name” by David Allen Coe? You know, in a Country-Western sort of way…

      7. avatar David T says:

        I would take exception to many implied inferences in your post, from a personal standpoint, as follows:

        – I am not overly fond of coffee so if I do drink the stuff, I want it to be good coffee – and while I do not think Starbucks is very good coffee, it is better than overly burnt trucks top coffee. That said I liked Starbucks original statement to the effect that they would respect their customers and honor what ever gun regulations were in effect in the location where their stores were, but they did not wish to become a political pawn. I also understand why they would be disappointed when that statement was not accepted and their wishes were not followed and a small but highly visible group of open cary activists then made Starbucks into the political pawn that they expressly asked not to be made into. While I do not agree with the later position that Starbucks took, I completely understand it as I would be understandable upset if the dog that I was feeding then bit my hand. I might even stop feeding that dog and in fact kick it off my porch – metaphorically speaking.

        – I have a cat, and I like that cat. It is not a demanding pet and I can have a life outside that cat without feeling like I am abandoning an insecure child while at the same time giving my daughter some idea what it is like to keep, take care, be responsible for, and live with an animal which has it’s own ideas of what to do outside her desires for it.

        – I own an Apple computer and if I had need of a laptop I most likely would get an Apple laptop. They just work and they also deal with viruses markedly better than Windows based machines.

        – I personally did and still do Hope for some Change in our government – although I was never foolish enough to believe anyone who actually could become the president would ever offer or deliver either.

        All that said, I most likely would agreed with any general disagreement with Connecticut’s (and any another state’s) legislation which banned or restricted any law abiding citizen’s access to any type of firearms or firearm accessory, such as ammunition feeding devices including clips and magazines (although I do wish people would use the proper definitions for each – just a pet peeve)

      8. avatar bigred1 says:

        reading this post just made my day.

      9. avatar cc says:

        I own a pc at home and use a macbook pro for work, I used to use a lenovo at work but I have to spend a substantial time on a *nix cli, cygwin blows and running a vm is not optimal. I also use the macbook to read TTAG

      10. avatar wyantry says:

        Wasn’t that “Bill The Cat” cleaning his (its? {the cats}) scrotum…?

        Sure wish these libtards could comprehend the distinction between “clips” and “magazines” Oh, and about those “automatic assault rifles” Sheesh!

    2. these dissenters are never willing to do the dirty work themselves but quick to send other people to die for their beliefs.

  2. avatar CK in CA says:

    “Ignorance of the law and/or a belated sense of concern about being caught is no reason to change the law.”

    And what about ignorance of the Constitution, and the effects (and lack thereof) of gun control?

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      The federal trial court says it is constitutional–so there. There is no possibility that this will change any time within the next year, maybe even three to five years if the Second Circuit affirms and SCOTUS review is sought AND granted AND there is a reversal. Until then, if you are busted, you will be convicted, become a felon, and lose your gun rights for life. What are you going to do in the mean time? “Do you feel lucky? Well do ya,, punk?”

      Personally, I’d find an out of state friend or storage locker until the appeals process is exhausted. Or sell.

      1. avatar Anon in CT says:

        If you bought any of the items retail since CT began it’s own registry, you have a right to be concerned, since they have all the info necessary to find you. It might be good to store with a reliable friend in Pennsylvania, Vermont or New Hampshire.

    2. avatar Jack in MT says:

      “Simply put, we can not allow any amnesty nor leniency for owners of automatic weapons and high capacity clips…”

      Not just the constitution, this idiot is ignorant of the very law he/she is arguing for.

      1. avatar Cliff H says:

        Or maybe not.

        I suspect there are VERY few “automatic” weapons in CT and damn few, if any, “high capacity clips.”

        If those were in actuality the items required to be registered or relinquished I would think damn few people there have much to worry about.

        1. avatar Dolan Duck says:

          There are several thousand full autos in CT. They were always legal. And they still are legal.

  3. avatar WI Patriot says:

    One can only hope that he’s a victims of his own words…

    1. avatar A samurai says:

      +1

  4. avatar Eric says:

    “Let these “law abiding citizens” reap what they have sown and leave the ban as it is.”

    One really shouldn’t wish for a Reaping to begin from this situation.

    1. avatar BDub says:

      The sarcastic use of the term “law-abiding gun owners” really burns me. How dare he insinuate that these gun owners are all really criminals, when they were created such at the stroke of a someone else’s pen.

      1. avatar A samurai says:

        To Anits, like this asshat, all gun owners ARE criminals. And he won’t rest until the laws are changed to recognize that “truth”. Look at his letter. Gun owners are a danger to society in his mind.

      2. avatar Delmarva Chip says:

        Well I suppose that technically they’re no longer law-abiding if they ignored this BS law. And that is unfortunately how it has to be. Laws like this should not be obeyed.

        Perhaps we should find a term other than “law-abiding” to describe gun owners, since the more laws of these that they pass, the more gun owners will end up breaking the law. When there are too many bad laws, the trait of being a “law-abiding” citizen is meaningless.

        I may start using the term “sensible gun owners” instead. I think it works – those of us who are careful with our firearms, take responsibility for our own self-defense, and are not out to harm others are indeed sensible folks. Perhaps there’s another option though.

        1. avatar Eric says:

          Constitutional?

        2. avatar Delmarva Chip says:

          A problem I see with that is that those who are supposed to uphold the constitution haven’t done so … otherwise we wouldn’t have all of these idiotic gun laws in the first place.

          I also think that since the right to self-defense (and the RKBA) precedes the constitution, “constitutional” doesn’t really send the right message. The message behind “law-abiding gun owner” and “sensible gun owner” is that “we are good people” (as opposed to “we have the RKBA”).

          I was also considering “civil” (as in civilized, community-oriented, etc.) as a possibility too. I’m not really sure what would work best.

        3. avatar Jus Bill says:

          Chip, it’s a Civil Rights thing, this natural right to self defense. That’s what we need to emphasize. “Bull” Connor tried to enforce unconstitutional laws successfully for decades before America awakened.

          Maybe the same will happen to Molloy. And Christie. And Cuomo/deBlasio. And O’Malley.

          How about “repressed, downtrodden gun owners?”

        4. avatar Rotary12 says:

          Wait until this goes to court, then have the jury nullify the law.
          We the people have to agree with the laws imposed on us. If we don’t, we nullify them.

    2. avatar A samurai says:

      +1

      1. avatar A samurai says:

        LWRC called it the R.E.P.R (read: Reaper) after all.

  5. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    MOLON LABE

    1. avatar AmericanSpirit says:

      Every time I see this I can’t help but think:

      Moron Labia.

      Pretty sure that’s applicable here.

      1. avatar Marine 03 says:

        Molon Labe American Spirit. If there’s any doubt in your confused mind as to the meaning of the term you can easily google it OR you can try to come take the guns…….I’m guessing you’ll use google.

        1. avatar Marine 03 says:

          What just absolutely blows the anti-gun mind is the notion that people refuse to register. It never occurs to them that it’s illegal for the government to outlaw arms. Where else in the US Constitution does it read “shall not be infringed?” I can assure you some state senator is fuming in an office right now and barking orders into a phone telling state police to just go “pick them up.” The state police aren’t willing to violate their oaths and be remembered by history as the ones who started the revolution. They will say “NO” followed by hundreds of lawyers who say “NO NO NO” followed by 100,000 citizens with rifles who say “ABSOLUTELY NO!” (already have actually) and then we will see who’s metal is tempered.

        2. avatar ChuckN says:

          As much as we’d like to believe that every LEO and serviceman
          will uphold their oath above all else, the sad truth is that far too
          many will simply follow orders. I think what’s really holding LE
          back is the understanding that by overtly taking firearms they
          will open a huge can of worms that may result in bearing the
          brunt of the backlash.

        3. avatar Jus Bill says:

          IF

          What’s holding the crooks, crazies and the CSP back are two things:
          – The sheer number of people to be arrested
          – The lack of a good “list” of gunowners, which means almost everyone in the state is a potential criminal.

      2. avatar Joe Lo says:

        weak sauce my friend…

        1. avatar AmericanSpirit says:

          I was deliberately twisting the words to fit the blog post, but I guess I wasn’t specific enough about it.

          Like comparing the author of said letter to stupid female genitalia.

  6. avatar Michael G Marriam says:

    Automatic weapons: AR-15 is not an automatic weapon. At least try to understand what you are afraid of before screaming off into the woods.

    1. avatar ropingdown says:

      Reading the NRA’s ILA-State Gun Laws section for CT yesterday, I noticed that semi-automatic patrol rifles, obviously in common use, are banned, but machine guns (with tax stamp) are legal.

      I thought to myself, “Well, if that’s the direction they’re trying to steer us, why resist?”

      1. avatar A samurai says:

        +1

      2. avatar Anon in CT says:

        If you owned it prior to 1994 maybe.

      3. avatar Jeff says:

        yeah, why resist a situation where legally owning a firearm involves endless meaningless legal hoop jumping and an entry price in the five figure range.

    2. avatar pyratemime says:

      That is asking for a lot from someone who states technical details don’t matter.

  7. avatar RandallOfLegend says:

    Well he didn’t say semi-automatic modern sporting rifles

    1. avatar JasonM says:

      …or high capacity magazines. So apparently he’s okay with AR-15s with 30 round mags or 100 round drums. Or he’s completely ignorant on the subject of his screed. But a nanny-statist would never argue a topic he doesn’t have a firm mastery of.

    2. avatar sagebrushracer says:

      and I don’t own any high capacity clips either. My clips for my Mosin M38 only hold 5…

  8. avatar AmericanSpirit says:

    Keep up the silent dissent, CT gun owners.

    Either you win or the powers that be are forced to show their true colors (again, still.)

    The educated upper middle class notion that all of our problems should be solved through the court system is laughable. Have any of them ever spent any time in court on the wrong side of the law for minor infractions? The district attorney acts like he/she is your best friend, but those same DAs and their “we’re willing to negotiate on some of these charges so it doesn’t go to trial” plea bargains mean it’s a “guilty until proven innocent” system, and judges are usually picked from within those same self-assured ranks.

    Expecting a system that feeds on itself to perpetuate its own existence to do a good job policing that system is like walking into the woods with nothing but a t-shirt and a cell phone and being surprised, stranded, and in need of rescue when things don’t go as planned.

    In the words of Michael Jackson on that hilarious South Park episode…

    “Ignorant!”

  9. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

    Wow. This person wants to see peaceful taxpayers, neighbors who have done nothing to harm the person or property of others, disarmed and thrown in prison. Seems to have quite a hard-on for it, in fact.

    Some people we can call political opponents. With these we can disagree but still share a beer and a few laughs at a BBQ. The person who wrote that letter is more than a political opponent. The letter writer is an enemy.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Enemies come in two flavors.

      Those who have been suitably dealt with…

      and those who are still alive.

    2. avatar Ross says:

      Enemy indeed, the very same type of person who were more than happy to drive the train carrying Jews to the gas chamber.

      1. avatar AmericanSpirit says:

        “But it’s for the good of society! The people in charge explicitly told me so!”

        If I remember right, that argument didn’t hold up well at the Nuremberg tribunal. As in, the concentration camp guards could say so, but that didn’t keep them from the firing squad.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Nor should it spare scumbags like this from similar fate. Treason never prospers.

    3. avatar smackit says:

      The writer cant wait until his brown shirt and armband arrives.

    4. avatar Herb says:

      I’m raising an eyebrow at this letter. All the writer left out was “Kick in doors! Midnight arrests! Police boots on miscreants’ throats! Reeducation camps!”

      Is it just possible that the writer is a TTAG wag with a wicked sense of humor? What if the state of Connecticut replies “Thank you for your public spiritedness and concern! We fully intend to act upon your suggestions!”

      Now….if this letter is genuine, then there are some real sickos out there. Anyone who advocates siccing the po-po on fellow citizens is truly deranged if not dangerous.

  10. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

    Robert let me call the wambualnce. So what if they did another 5% might register, and that is might?
    The politicians feel so smug they passed the law, now people are telling them to FOAD. Now what?
    What are they going to do?
    This is clearly egg on their faces. Now the 95% of voter who are now criminals surely won’t vote for them again. Let’s say as an example out of 320,000 unregistered, estimated gun, 75% are married. So that means there are 480000 people who will vote against you in the next election, roughly or more.

  11. avatar Shire-man says:

    Awww look, his grade-school rage is showing:

    Offering those who were too lazy or too stupid to comply….

    Worrying about all those “automatic weapons” and “clips” makes me wonder who is stupid.

    1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      The biggest stand-out for me was the name calling.
      Lazy and or stupid.
      Good grief.

      1. avatar benny says:

        If you have to resort to name calling to boost your argument, it was a doomed effort to begin with.

        Shoulda stayed on shore, mate.

    2. avatar Rick says:

      Pretty big on ad homina isn’t he?

    3. avatar Ing says:

      In one way our noble letter-writer is right: an amnesty period would definitely net the lazy and stupid.

      But it apparently hasn’t occurred to this zealot that the vast majority of noncompliant gun owners could be ignoring Connecticut’s draconian restrictions on principle.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        “Why, that would be illegal…”

    4. avatar BillC says:

      Also how he/she said it this way,
      “That John McKinney and other Republicans…” THAT DAMN JOHN HIS REPUBLICANS!

  12. avatar DanRRZ says:

    Well, allow me to retort…

    “Offering those who are too lazy or too stupid” to do research and utilize proper terminology the ability to contribute an opinion “is an insult.”

    You are not smart enough to have an opinion here, and here is why:
    1- The issue is not automatic weapons
    2- The term clip does not mean what you think it does
    3- This amnesty piece is a ploy to cover up the widespread disobedience of 2A supporters. When the number of registered guns comes back shockingly low, it will in fact prove the futility of this law. You are the only lazy and stupid person involved, those not registering their guns are doing so in a calculated manner in protest of this unconstitutional law.

    1. avatar Wiregrass says:

      Love the Pulp Fiction reference!

      1. avatar DanRRZ says:

        I was hoping somebody would catch that

  13. avatar Paul B says:

    What a maroon.

    1. avatar Colt Magnum says:

      Bugs Bunny quote. Awesome!

      1. avatar Marcus Aurelius says:

        What a gulli-bull as well, to believe the things he believes.

        t=3m35s

    2. avatar Ralph says:

      What an imbezzle.

  14. avatar Coe says:

    The ignorance is strong in this one…

    1. avatar Delmarva Chip says:

      “automatic” weapons … “high capacity clips” …

      You can’t fix the willfully ignorant. They choose to be that way.

  15. avatar Donnie GA says:

    Wake up and smell the coffee, Mrs Bueller. It’s a fools paradise. He’s just leeeaaddding you down the primrose path

  16. avatar cwp says:

    Wait, is this supposed to be genuine? Because I immediately assumed that an actual pro-self-defense person wrote this letter as satire. I guess it just goes to show, you can’t satirize reality.

    1. avatar ProfBathrobe says:

      That was my first thought too. Guess Poe’s law is more powerful than I had previously assumed.

    2. avatar JasonM says:

      I thought maybe that was the case, but this letter sounds sincere, but completely ignorant. A good satire letter would have said something about how we need to build prisons to house these new suburbanites turned vicious felons.

  17. avatar JoshuaS says:

    “As residents of Connecticut we should not allow McKinney and other worried/vulnerable Republicans to shore up their support with the GOP gun owners at the expense of the rule of law.

    No amnesty, no leniency, no exceptions. Voters are watching you Hartford. ”

    Why do I have a feeling that If I wrote “As residents of California we should not allow Sternberg and other worried/vulnerable Democrats to shore up their support with DNC Latinos at the expense of the rule of law. No amnesty, no leniency, no exceptions.” I would be labelled a racist and a bigot probably by the very author of this piece?

    Would he say that lgislators should not change immigration laws, but let the courts determine if changes are needed?

    Damn right it is politics. That is what opposition parties are far, to challenge laws their base does not like. But he is wrong about the direction of the politics. This act would strengthen gun control. By showing “no leniency” the Dems leave the only viable option for many, which is to attack the law in toto.

    1. avatar Anon in CT says:

      I’m with him/her/it on this. Let the RINOs twist in the wind. Don’t let them get to be “heroes” for getting a shamnesty.

  18. avatar Jack in MT says:

    “These items are a menace to your culture…”

    Really? These “items” are the problem? Not, you know, violent criminals?

  19. avatar Jay In Florida says:

    Gun owners of Conn stand up and tell this jerk of an author who penned this drivel FOAD.
    You have my support and maybe my gun some day.

  20. avatar speedracer5050 says:

    I’m telling you!! Those “shoulder thingies that pop up are Soooo scary”!!! The multitude of ignorant statements in that letter has left a sour taste in my mouth and I live way South of CT!! Maybe just maybe that letter writer never bred or had pups and the DNA strand of ignorance will die when they do! We can only hope!!

    “Ignorance of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is not an excuse Asshole”!!!

  21. avatar JAS says:

    That person should check their house for gas leaks, it’s definitely leaking moron gas.

  22. avatar crashbbear says:

    This person is what we call a nut.

    “triumph of common sense”… “Shall not be infringed” is as simple, common, and sensible as it gets. Common sense doesn’t mean it makes sense TO YOU. It means something that is a commonly held belief that makes sense. The constitution is common sense. This persons letter is a liberal protectionist brown streak devoid of facts, knowledge, sense, and common knowledge.

    And a smart person would know the difference between a clip fed automatic weapon and what the laws pertain to.

  23. avatar TheSleeperHasAwakened says:

    …automatic assault weapons or high capacity clips…

    I’m surprised this jackass didn’t say “Ghost Gun” nor “.30-caliber clip” nor “Thirty magazine clip in half a second”.

    Oh…and I forgot “Shoulder thing that goes up”.

    1. avatar peirsonb says:

      That would be too close to actually understanding his own position. There’s no room for techno-speak in a perfectly ideological argument…

  24. avatar Danny Griffin says:

    There is an estimated 4% compliance rate. What is Connecticut going to do, throw a million gun-owners in prison?

  25. avatar Wiregrass says:

    The ignorance that persists astounds me. Still going on about automatic weapons and “high capacity clips” without the slightest attempt to sound like they know what they are talking about. Which they obviously don’t. Hats off to those in CT that have chosen civil disobedience.

  26. avatar peirsonb says:

    I’m honestly on the fence….limited amnesty vs. not. In the former case, we have to wait for whatever the amnesty period to see, guess what, STILL only 5% registration. In the case of the latter we get to the heart of the issue much more quickly.

    Either way isn’t going to lead to increased registration numbers. At this point I would doubt that the 95-some-odd percent of folks that didn’t register would comply no matter what the time limit is. So we’re really just talking about how long they will wait for whatever the next steps are….

  27. avatar Korvis says:

    The Ridiculousness clearly is strong with this one, but this in particular:

    “These items are a menace to your culture and it should be left to the courts to decide if changes to the law are warranted, not political back scratching.”

    The mindset of “it’s the legislature’s job to ‘do something’ and the courts’ job to finish the business of legislating” is just about the most bass-got-damned-ackward embrace of political foolishness a sane person could try to imagine.

    I need a drink now. Glad it’s Friday.

  28. avatar TommyinKY says:

    False Flag meet Checkers. There was no talk of “gun violence, common sense, or safety” Progressives love RINOs, why the hate for McKinney who compromised? While this is the way gun grabbers may speak in private, it’s missing the usual talking points and spin. I call BS.

  29. avatar AlphaGeek says:

    95% non-compliance is a whole lot of Ghost Guns. The disarmament advocates have to be crapping ghost kittens right about now.

  30. avatar DrVino says:

    “automatic”? “clips”?
    Do these people not learn? Not try? Do they prefer to run with their unverified misconceptions or do they use these terms to simply get our side riled up?

    1. avatar Eric says:

      It’s about “feeling” good and righteous when they see the world around them (and themselves by extension) as fallen and vile. Rational argument doesn’t factor into that catharsis.

  31. avatar Chas says:

    People like this shouldn’t be allowed to breed.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Neither should their parents.

  32. avatar 2AYoda says:

    Hmm… Much butt hurt I sense. Liberal you must be.

  33. avatar Swarf says:

    automatic weapons and high capacity clips . . .

    Soo, this problem is already solve, done and done.

  34. avatar SdubM45 says:

    Yea, you and what army buddy.

  35. avatar Shane says:

    I only hope that this letter writer is the first in the stack when confiscation begins.

  36. avatar launchpadmech says:

    Just say no to phyco killer syndrome. That should be the question. We need to label the people not a gun or knife or bat or hands,cars etc. You get point.

  37. avatar Bdk NH says:

    First, I am of the mind that that any amnesty offering is a trap coming and going. I fear that post amnesty dis-obedience will be met with an iron fist and many otherwise law abiding citizens will suffer without pity because they “had no more excuses”. Unless you are from here, it is hard to understand just how paternal, righteous, and vindictive Yankee culture can be.

    With a 95% non compliance rate, how long before you hear about the cases of ex wives, broken friendships, or nosy neighbors reporting non- complying people. Has CT set up an 800 rat line yet? What about a case where a person defends themselves with a non registered rifle? Are there going to be raids?

    1. avatar Anon in CT says:

      . . . or nosy, ignorant neighbors and vicous ex-wives reporting those owners who have complied, in the former case because they see something they shouldn’t have and don’t know you’re registred, and in the latter case because they think you deserve a good SWATting.

      Or here’s a thought – for those who did register, they still can’t take those items to the range, since the state has yet to send out the Registration Certificates to those who send in registration in December. So until they do, you’re stuck – you’re a criminal anyway.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        Meh, a Wheaties box top will do just fine until they get around to it.

  38. avatar Greg in Allston says:

    Happy Lunar New Year y’all.

    I see that the barking moonbats are in full howl in the Nutmag State. Heh! And it’s a new moon today, not a full moon.

    I hope that the righteous patriots of CT continue their civil disobedience and that if an amnesty bill does get passed out of the legislature that it will be even more widely ignored than the first registration scheme was. Stay strong and vigilant CT. They can’t lock up tens of thousands of you. Remember, if you don’t all hang together today, you shall all hang separately tomorrow.

  39. avatar PavePusher says:

    We need the link to this, so we can soundly mock the writer for not knowing what the law is actually about.

    “…block any sort of “amnesty” for owners of automatic assault weapons or high capacity clips.”

    ” Ignorance of the law and/or a belated sense of concern about being caught is no reason to change the law. Let these “law abiding citizens” reap what they have sown ….”

    Oh, the delicious Irony…. The butt-hurt is strong with this one.

  40. avatar dook says:

    “automatic weapons and high capacity clips”

    O’rly?

    1. avatar Eric says:

      He’s obviously a scholar of obscure firearms and concerned about the serious proliferation of Type 11’s amongst our children…

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_11_Light_Machine_Gun

  41. avatar Jethro says:

    I’m confused, are we supposed to agree or disagree? Personally I agree. Forget amnesty and get on with it. “Lazy and stupid” aren’t the reasons for non-compliance and they know it. The reason is no means no.

    Republicans shoring up support with amnesty is laughable. More like Democrat pussies drawing a new line in the sand after we stepped over the last one. Like a little old lady wagging her finger at a biker gang.

    Bluff called, time to lay down the cards.

  42. avatar Rich says:

    lot if ignorant people who are anti constitution. don’t like the gun laws or the right to bear arms. Pack your stuff and leave. I will not allow myself or my family to be raped, mugged, robbed or murdered in my own home. If you enjoy having that happen to you and your family, thats fine. Don’t force your issues and ignorance onto me and mine. People drown every yr than there are gun victims. Guess by your logic we need to ban water

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      I have an idea, Why don’t they move to NYC? They should feel right at home. You can’t own even a picture of a gun there.

  43. avatar StevieP65 says:

    Automatic weapons have been severely restricted since 1934.

    Next??

  44. avatar launchpadmech says:

    That little old lady or old man can do more damage then any (biker). They don’t give a rat A about laws.

  45. avatar Marcus says:

    What an uppity dick.

  46. avatar PNG says:

    Calling Commiecticut’s new gun laws the best in the nation is like being able to commit the most comfortable rape.

  47. avatar Randy Drescher says:

    Dear elected officials of Conn. I am writing to inform you I have completely lost my mind. I have tried to cross over from the parallel universe but sadly the gate closed before I quite made it. Along with the proliferation of automatic weapons in civilian hands won’t you please address Bofors cannons & 6000 rounds per minute gattling guns. They have them, they do they do I know they do. In summation I thank you for trampling on the rights of decent people, this is something we really need to nip in the bud, Randy

  48. avatar Renegade Dave says:

    Rather than dissect this argument and tactfully and concisely rebut it with facts and figures and a discussion of rights, etc… Allow me to just say this:

    NERD!

  49. avatar Jim at the NSA says:

    Nuts

    1. avatar CTsheepdog says:

      Battle of the Bulge reference?

  50. avatar GSD says:

    “Offering those who were too lazy or too stupid to comply-” , I’ll bet he/she/it would have a totally different spin if the law required an ID to vote.

    1. avatar the ruester says:

      WINNER

  51. avatar Patriot says:

    “automatic weapons and high capacity clips” wow, are they just trying to troll at this point or does the ignorance truly come natural.

  52. avatar Steve D. says:

    So much for the US Constitution!

    “Ex Post Facto” laws like this are supposed to be forbidden:
    United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3

    Ex post facto law – a law which makes a previously legal act into an illegal act after the action had already been committed.

    ie: a person buys a perfectly legal firearm which is later deemed to be an illegal firearm at a later date by unconstitutional legislation.

    People should not be required to seek any recertification/approval for their previous purchases to remain in a legal status. Any judge that rules otherwise clearly does not abide by the US Constitution.

    1. avatar Delmarva Chip says:

      I don’t think technically that “ex post facto” would apply here. The illegal act is not purchasing the firearm (which happened in the past). The illegal act is failure to register the firearm after the law was passed.

      That said, the law is unconstitutional and should be erased from existence.

  53. avatar Marine 03 says:

    Conneticut legislators. – “Okay, now we’ll send men with guns into your homes to collect your guns!! Why did you ever think you needed guns anyway?” Actually that’s a joke of course. I’ve never witnessed a state government blink like this is my life. They know that to attempt to confiscate by force would be a disaster and the libs will add amnesty to amnesty to amnesty to amnesty to avoid it. We’ve already won this. Checkmate.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      They will keep extending the amnesty period until just after the elections.

  54. avatar Jus Bill says:

    And to celebrate mailing the letter and having it reproduced here, this psycho snaps, buys some cheap red wine, drinks it down, fills the bottle with gasoline, stuffs their shirt in the open neck of the bottle, and goes out looking for an “assault weapon owner’s” house to firebomb, thereby killing them, their spouse, and their children.

    Because guns are dangerous!

  55. avatar Doc Brown says:

    Weren’t fully automatic weapons for the public outlawed in the 1930s’ or was it the 1940s’ during the first
    round of gun control? So I would say someone needs to do some homework ie: CAGV

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      The 1938 NFA does not outlaw automatic weapons, it only regulates them by requiring a permit from the ATF and a $200 tax payment. The only ban is on the sale of NEW automatic weapons after 1968. It is still legal to own automatic weapons–with the proper approval from the ATF, but because the market for such guns is so severely restricted, most sell for north of $10,000.

      1. avatar BillC says:

        No, that was the 1985/86 Machine Gun Ban part of FOPA. You couldn’t have a machine gun of manufacture after 1986.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#Machine_Gun_Ban

      2. avatar Doc Brown says:

        Thank you Mark and Bill

  56. avatar Hannibal says:

    Hmm. I agree that there should be no amnesty here, but not for the reasons in the letter… except this:

    “That John McKinney and other Republicans seems to be supporting this “amnesty” should be seen for the political act that it is.”

    It IS a political act, and one that will do nothing to help gun rights. They (not just republicans) want to appear ‘reasonable’ but also want to delay questions about why registration numbers are so low until after the elections. I’d rather hear their thoughts on how it is helpful that they have now criminalized so many otherwise legal gun owners.

  57. avatar Brian LaForge says:

    Well… Since my N-PAP M70 AK is a Semi Auto rifle, and not an Automatic assault weapon as worded, there would be no need for me to register anything. This includes registering my High capacity clips… sorry, I use high capacity magazines. Which are completely different than clips. So… again… No need for me to register anything.

  58. avatar endless nameless says:

    yet another example of a big fat lasagna of wrong.

  59. avatar Karina says:

    Well I guess my extra-long strips of metal made to hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition are now illegal. Thankfully they didn’t say anything about my plastic and aluminium boxes with springs inside!

  60. avatar Jimmy Wade says:

    I was literally ripping my hair out while reading that letter.

    1. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

      I was figuratively gagging…

  61. avatar Mark says:

    It’s too bad those seeking amnesty are not friends of Obama. He would grant it.
    This editorial is what emerges when you give idiots a pen. We see this with the “automatic weapons” and “clips” remarks. This moron has no idea what he is ranting about.

    1. avatar Timbo says:

      Maybe the pens should be registered? Oh no. That involves an outdated constitutional right. Can’t do that. Unless it is Fox News. Then it’s ok.

  62. avatar Erin says:

    I don’t have any “automatic weapons” or high-capacity “clips.”

  63. avatar cubby123 says:

    Hey ASSHOLE the ban is ILLEGAL.and goes against our Constitution.The law abiding citizens don’t need your sarcastic criticism of which tjey NEED NOT COMPLY.You are illegal and should be jailed for treason.

  64. avatar Pat says:

    Knock, knock. Oink, oink. Bang, bang. Dead bacon.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email