When Canada tried to implement mass registration of long guns the compliance rate over about a decade was estimated at less than 10%. We simply largely ignored the law. After about 13 years the government gave up and scrapped the law.
No widespread forcible compliance effort was ever made by the government as even in their hubris they realized the likely outcome given the abysmal compliance rates.
Given the inalienable rights enshrined in the constitution and much higher firearms ownership rates here in the US I can't imagine that overall compliance being less and the consequences of forced compliance being much more severe.
Me thinks Lawlor made a slip of the tongue. Lawlor said, "the goal is to have fewer of these types of weapons in circulation". How would registering the guns, limit circulation, unless he has plans for confiscation? Too bad the media cannot be counted on ask this obvious question. On another note: Have their been any Connecticut government hits on Sipsey Street? It would seem illogical for the state to ignore such a treasure trove of info.
Guess they have upwards of 100,000 ARMED felons in Connecticut now ... plus a whole heap of ARs and mags which can henceforth only be traded upon the black market or slipped clandestinely out of State.
Hey swift, I caught that little slip as well. LESS can only mean taking them away COMBINED with stopping all new sales. He is busted. Maybe it cuz Mike here is living in his head rent free? He he.
Commie bastards always go after food and guns. More interesting is that each commie bastard thinks he's the first to do so and can do it "better" and differently than previous commie bastards.
Another bit I noticed- comparing to lists of those who underwent background checks for these rifles struck me as odd. What list is being referred to there? In Connecticut, does the state keep track of each separate sale on the gun specific sale?? How would that not be registration in place already? Is a journalist taking some artistic license there? Is he referring to NICS and claiming its item specific and they keep lists, hmmmm?
It's my hope that everyone seeing these rat fink traitors called Connecticut democrats yells out "Colorado" to them. Upon wondering why so many keep saying that to them it can be explained to them like this.
Can you say recall?
I would like to say this here.
THIS stuff right here is why the NRA is HARMFUL to the gun rights plight. The jack wagons should step aside and watch the foolish statists go ahead and pass the outrageous idiocy. Cuz when they do - LOOK WHAT HAPPENS!!!! The PEOPLE get pissed off and THEN do something about it. When the NRA "helps" it ONLY serves to aid the domestic enemy known as Democrats. When called out on this point by many everywhere they look, the NRA would have to stop helping people like Harry Reid keep power!!!
From the article: '"A lot of it is just a question to ask, and I think the firearms unit would be looking at it," said Mike Lawlor, the state's top official in criminal justice. "They could send them a letter."'
Ooooh, now that is something scary. A letter!
I have to laugh at these people. They really do think we timidly obey their every whim, shaking in our boots. The dorks.
Quoth Conn. St. Sen. Tony Guglielmo, R-Stafford, the ranking GOP senator on the legislature's public safety committee: "If you pass laws that people have no respect for and they don't follow them, then you have a real problem."
Somehow I doubt it ever ocurred to this dingleberries-for-brains to consult (or more likely simply LISTEN TO) his constituents before voting for that abominable piece of legislation. And yet I seriously doubt he has never knowlingly run a red light or stop sign or gone over the posted speed limit. Clearly he does not understand that most people don't disobey the law simply because they are not inclined to engage in the proscribed behavior in the first place. That or they are sufficiently uncomfortable with the prospective penalties they will suffer if they DO engage in such conduct that they refrain.
Quoth the redoubtable said Mike Lawlor, the state's top official in criminal justice: "A lot of it is just a question to ask, and I think the firearms unit would be looking at it, They could send them a letter."
Is this asshat SERIOUS? "[S]end them a letter"???? If he is serious, Dutchman, then hs isn't so much a criminal as simply criminally stupid! Sounds like those yankees are - as my old football coach used to put it - "Plumb eat up with the dumbs".
The problem could explode if Connecticut officials decide to compare the list of people who underwent background checks to buy military-style rifles in the past, to the list of those who registered in 2013. Do they still own those guns? The state might want to know.
But aren't the records of who underwent a criminal background check supposed to be destroyed after a period of time (6 months IMS)?? There shouldn't even BE any records from before the 1st of July last year.
I think the more they bring this shit to light the more it shows They have no F-ing clue who has what or how many of them..
don't register shit, don't disclose you own anything..don't comply with any of these new laws or any of the old ones either for that matter..
they are clueless as to what you have and or how many of them you have, so don't freaking tell them what you have by registering them or telling them a dam thing
9 comments:
Oh well.....the public simply rejected prohibition, too.
Sorry, Mr. Lawlor.
When Canada tried to implement mass registration of long guns the compliance rate over about a decade was estimated at less than 10%. We simply largely ignored the law. After about 13 years the government gave up and scrapped the law.
No widespread forcible compliance effort was ever made by the government as even in their hubris they realized the likely outcome given the abysmal compliance rates.
Given the inalienable rights enshrined in the constitution and much higher firearms ownership rates here in the US I can't imagine that overall compliance being less and the consequences of forced compliance being much more severe.
Me thinks Lawlor made a slip of the tongue. Lawlor said, "the goal is to have fewer of these types of weapons in circulation". How would registering the guns, limit circulation, unless he has plans for confiscation? Too bad the media cannot be counted on ask this obvious question. On another note: Have their been any Connecticut government hits on Sipsey Street? It would seem illogical for the state to ignore such a treasure trove of info.
Guess they have upwards of 100,000 ARMED felons in Connecticut now ... plus a whole heap of ARs and mags which can henceforth only be traded upon the black market or slipped clandestinely out of State.
Worked well didn't it?
III
Hey swift, I caught that little slip as well. LESS can only mean taking them away COMBINED with stopping all new sales. He is busted. Maybe it cuz Mike here is living in his head rent free? He he.
Commie bastards always go after food and guns. More interesting is that each commie bastard thinks he's the first to do so and can do it "better" and differently than previous commie bastards.
Another bit I noticed- comparing to lists of those who underwent background checks for these rifles struck me as odd. What list is being referred to there? In Connecticut, does the state keep track of each separate sale on the gun specific sale?? How would that not be registration in place already? Is a journalist taking some artistic license there? Is he referring to NICS and claiming its item specific and they keep lists, hmmmm?
It's my hope that everyone seeing these rat fink traitors called Connecticut democrats yells out "Colorado" to them. Upon wondering why so many keep saying that to them it can be explained to them like this.
Can you say recall?
I would like to say this here.
THIS stuff right here is why the NRA is HARMFUL to the gun rights plight. The jack wagons should step aside and watch the foolish statists go ahead and pass the outrageous idiocy. Cuz when they do - LOOK WHAT HAPPENS!!!! The PEOPLE get pissed off and THEN do something about it. When the NRA "helps" it ONLY serves to aid the domestic enemy known as Democrats. When called out on this point by many everywhere they look, the NRA would have to stop helping people like Harry Reid keep power!!!
"If you pass laws that people have no respect for and they don't follow them, then you have a real problem."
They have no idea what kind of "problem" they have.
Law of unintended consequences is absolutely in force on this one.
Edwin III
From the article:
'"A lot of it is just a question to ask, and I think the firearms unit would be looking at it," said Mike Lawlor, the state's top official in criminal justice. "They could send them a letter."'
Ooooh, now that is something scary. A letter!
I have to laugh at these people. They really do think we timidly obey their every whim, shaking in our boots. The dorks.
Quoth Conn. St. Sen. Tony Guglielmo, R-Stafford, the ranking GOP senator on the legislature's public safety committee:
"If you pass laws that people have no respect for and they don't follow them, then you have a real problem."
Somehow I doubt it ever ocurred to this dingleberries-for-brains to consult (or more likely simply LISTEN TO) his constituents before voting for that abominable piece of legislation. And yet I seriously doubt he has never knowlingly run a red light or stop sign or gone over the posted speed limit. Clearly he does not understand that most people don't disobey the law simply because they are not inclined to engage in the proscribed behavior in the first place. That or they are sufficiently uncomfortable with the prospective penalties they will suffer if they DO engage in such conduct that they refrain.
Quoth the redoubtable said Mike Lawlor, the state's top official in criminal justice: "A lot of it is just a question to ask, and I think the firearms unit would be looking at it, They could send them a letter."
Is this asshat SERIOUS? "[S]end them a letter"???? If he is serious, Dutchman, then hs isn't so much a criminal as simply criminally stupid! Sounds like those yankees are - as my old football coach used to put it - "Plumb eat up with the dumbs".
The problem could explode if Connecticut officials decide to compare the list of people who underwent background checks to buy military-style rifles in the past, to the list of those who registered in 2013. Do they still own those guns? The state might want to know.
But aren't the records of who underwent a criminal background check supposed to be destroyed after a period of time (6 months IMS)?? There shouldn't even BE any records from before the 1st of July last year.
I think the more they bring this shit to light the more it shows They have no F-ing clue who has what or how many of them..
don't register shit, don't disclose you own anything..don't comply with any of these new laws or any of the old ones either for that matter..
they are clueless as to what you have and or how many of them you have, so don't freaking tell them what you have by registering them or telling them a dam thing
Trust me they wouldn't be "ASKING" if they "KNEW"
Post a Comment