Wednesday, March 5, 2014

MN GOP Stands for 'Mazingly Nutty, Gullible (&)/OR Paranoid!

by Dog Gone of Penigma

A Minnesota radical Right Wing blogger wrote up a rumor earlier today as if it were fact this morning that “Connecticut was a commin’ to confiscate yer guns”. The original story dates back to a claim by the utterly-unbelievable, totally-lacking-in-any-shred-of-credibility, Glenn “boo hoo” Beck and the Blaze. The local radical right wing-nuttery blogger was Mitch Berg, over at Shot in the dark/aka shot in the foot. Here is the original steaming fact-TURD from Beck, in his most recent blazing poop update: 
UPDATE: A spokesperson with the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit of the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection told TheBlaze that a letter has been drafted to send to gun owners who are found to be in possession of unregistered semi-automatic rifles deemed illegal by the state’s new gun control law. However, “not a one” letter has been sent out so far. The spokesperson, who didn’t want to identify herself, refused to comment on the content of the draft letter. When we asked what other action the state plans to take against owners of unregistered so-called “assault rifles, the spokesperson said we should contact the governor’s office because that’s where they get their orders from. It’s not clear if the letter published by the Capitalism Institute is authentic, though we can confirm a draft letter does exist.
No, no such draft letters exist that in any way suggest confiscation or pre-confiscation, etc.  This is like claiming that getting a reminder to renew your drivers license is a threat the police are coming to arrest you, or that if you get the renewal notice for your license tabs, it means law enforcement is coming down the street to tow your car out of your garage - and keep it.

46 comments:

  1. Yes, the letter doesn't threaten a raid. It just says, to summarize, your formerly legal property is now illegal and we know you have it. Get rid of it in one of these ways or risk the consequences--i.e. confiscation and felony charges.

    At best it means that they're too lazy to go out after these people right now and prefer to prosecute them at their leisure.

    As for the people who may comply with the letter, their compliance is no more voluntary this way than if the police came to the door and took the gun. To imply otherwise is nothing but dishonesty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "too lazy?" You're a funny guy.

      Delete
    2. And as usual you dodge the issue and move on to making unfounded accusations on other topics.

      Delete
  2. The people receiving those letters should keep their guns (and keep stocking up on ammo). The state has no way of knowing that recipients of the letter have by now not disposed of the guns in one of the described legal fashions, and any judge who would sign a search warrant to test that possibility deserves what I like to call a "recall vote from the rooftops"--and he just might get it.

    Call the state's bluff, Connecticut gun owners.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dog Gone, aren't you reading the discussions here? Connecticut has come up before. That state is in the process of confiscating legally purchased guns. So other than giving you a chance to trot out every insult you can think of, what was the point of this article?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Isn't that the question, Greg, whether they're really "in the process of confiscating legally purchased guns" or not?

      Delete
    2. As I said above--people are being told to get rid of the guns or face future prosecution. Claiming that's not a confiscatory policy is transparently dishonest.

      Delete
    3. No, it's not. The letters do not threaten confiscation. That's the whole point of the post. If you think confiscation is implied, I think you're wrong, again for the reasons pointed out in the post. The authorities would have no way of identifying the guys who tried to register their guns too late and who have still not disposed of them in the legal ways indicated.

      This is exaggerated victimism on the part of you poor beleaguered gun-rights fanatics. You're sooo persecuted.

      Delete
    4. Mike, you're not fooling anyone. A week or two ago you were cheering the idea of using purchase records (an even weaker source for probable cause) to guide enforcement of this law.

      Now you're hiding behind the fact that they haven't taken your advice...yet.

      And again, whether they go around confiscating guns or they use the threat of prosecution, which they will follow through on in the cases they get a chance to, to intimidate people into disposing of their property, then the law has had the same confiscatory effect without officially confiscating the guns.

      If you had any integrity you would own up to this rather than hiding behind the cloak of calling us names.

      Delete
  4. "This is like claiming that getting a reminder to renew your drivers license is a threat the police are coming to arrest you, or that if you get the renewal notice for your license tabs, it means law enforcement is coming down the street to tow your car out of your garage - and keep it. "

    Actually, that is exactly what the letter, if true is saying. If you're late in renewing the tabs on your car, the worst that can happen is you get a ticket and told to get them on the car, or you'll get another ticket next time.
    In this situation, if they find you in possession, you'll be arrested and charged with a felony. There is now currently no way to legally register the firearm late, no amnesty period. In fact, state gun control advocates are lobbying against giving owners who missed the deadline any amnesty, or any second chance.

    "Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s office announced today that 160 assault weapon certificate applications and 398 large-capacity magazine declarations that were signed and notarized before the application due date and postmarked by Jan. 4 will be accepted by the state Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection."

    "The state will notify individuals who had their applications submitted after the deadline of the four ways they can dispose of their weapons and ammunition, according to the governor’s press release."
    http://www.nhregister.com/general-news/20140214/gov-malloy-announces-more-guns-allowed-in-under-registration-deadline

    So, currently, anyone besides those I just mentioned are what is politely referred to as SOL. It isn't a matter of if, its a matter of when.

    ReplyDelete
  5. What a tortured acronym. Why not start with a word that actually begins with "M", like "manically" or something?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, "manically" probably hits a little too close to home for Dog Gone.

      Delete
    2. Dog Gone has a tortured sense of humor.

      Delete
  6. http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2014/02/a-sipsey-street-public-service.html

    The state of Connecticut is making lists of firearm owners to raid. It seems obvious to me that it is thus only fair to list those anti-constitutional tyrants who will have blood on their hands the moment the first Connecticut citizen is shot by the CT state police while carrying out their orders. I will be sending these folks my own email later today.
    CT State Senators voting Yes on "An Act Concerning Gun Violence Prevention and Children's Safety, also known as Public Law 13-3 or Connecticut Senate Bill No. 1160," 3 April 2013. List includes home addresses. Photos and home phone numbers of these tyrants are available here:

    http://www.cbia.com/ga/CT_State_Senators_List/-AZSENATE

    John W. Fonfara, 99 Montowese St., Hartford 06114-2841
    Eric D. Coleman, 77 Wintonbury Ave., Bloomfield 06002-2529
    Andrea Stillman, 5 Coolidge Ct., Waterford 06385-3309......

    ......
    CT House members voting Yes on "An Act Concerning Gun Violence Prevention and Children's Safety, also known as Public Law 13-3 or Connecticut Senate Bill No. 1160," 3 April 2013. Photos and home phone numbers of these tyrants are available here:

    http://www.cbia.com/ga/CT_State_Representatives_List/-AZHOUSE

    Catherine Abercrombie, 64 Parker Ave., Meriden 06450-5945
    Ernest Hewett, 29 Colman St., New London 06320-3558
    Peter Tercyak, 150 Belridge Rd., New Britain 06053-1008....

    Hilarity ensues........

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent. Good for the citizen means good for the politician.

      Delete
    2. We talked about this blatant hypocrisy of Mike Z. before. He denounced with vigor the publication of concealed carry permit holder's addresses, now he does this. And the suck-ass followers meet this with exactly what Greg said.

      Delete
    3. We talked about this blatant hypocrisy of Mike Z. before

      It's "Mike Z" now? "Vanderboegh" doesn't come late enough in the alphabet for you? Strange.

      Anyway, public officials are, well . . . public. and listing them for their votes on the laws the public is expected to follow (although that expectation is clearly going unmet in this case) is entirely distinct from listing people for their personal security arrangements.

      In other words, you have documented no "hypocrisy" on the part of either Mike V or "Mike Z."

      Delete
    4. The cool part, though, is the fact that the legislators are screaming for protective details now.

      Think a few of them might keep that fear in mind next time a vote for forcible citizen disarmament comes up? I do.

      You gotta love that.

      Delete
    5. Deny the sky is blue, why dontcha?

      Delete
    6. Nah--I'll stick with the truth. It's a quaint little habit of mine. I see it's one that you are extremely careful to avoid.

      Delete
    7. Mikeb, my position is that what's good for one is good for all. If the politicians don't like having their rights violated, they should stop violating our rights.

      Delete
    8. I would assume a typo as you have yet to illustrate any hypocrisy on my part especially in regards to publishing addresses. Are you referring to me or is it a typo?
      MikeZ

      Delete
    9. So, Kurt, listing the personal details of public officials is OK, but not those of private citizens? You mean listing the personal details of public officials who oppose your bizarre ideas of gun-rights, right? You're as much a hypocrite as your hero Mike VVVVVVV.

      Delete
    10. So, Kurt, listing the personal details of public officials is OK, but not those of private citizens?

      Yep. Those who presume to write the laws by which we're expected to be constrained had better expect to be held accountable.

      And again, the good news is that it's working--their screaming for protective details shows that they've been successfully reminded of their accountability.

      Delete
    11. "So, Kurt, listing the personal details of public officials is OK, but not those of private citizens?"

      Mike, I don't believe anyone has listed any private information about public officials. I'm pretty sure all of those legislators campaigned vigorously to attain their position. I don't believe anyone has released any information that isn't publically held.
      That being said, my personal belief is that while not illegal, confronting someone of a subject such as this at their home and potentially in front of their family is poor form, and not in my playbook.

      Delete
    12. I know it's not in your playbook, ss. That's because unlike Kurt and Mike V., your a reasonable man. If it's wrong for one group it's wrong for the other. Kurt's weak differentiation about one group being those who write the laws is total bullshit.

      Delete
    13. Mikeb, before you get excited, I'm unconvinced that SSG and I are at odds on this issue. As he points out, the information Mr. Vanderboegh posted is not private--Mr. Vanderboegh merely aggregated it.

      What SSG says is "poor form" is confronting the oath-breaking petty tyrants at their homes, and to my knowledge, Mr. Vanderboegh has done nothing of the sort. Indeed, I don't remember seeing him urging anyone else to do so, either.

      All that's needed is for these dirtbags to know that a considerable number of their angry, determined, and armed betters know where they live.

      So I therefore reject your "total bullshit" charge, which like nearly everything else you spout, is the real "total bullshit."

      Delete
    14. More typical bullshit from the slick-talking Kurt. "We know where you live" is a threat, plain and simple. Not specifically asking the followers to do anything illegal is small comfort.

      This is besides my main point of the hypocrisy inherent in this Mike V. initiative.

      I'm not sure where exactly ss stands on all this, but I'd wager he's closer to me than he is to you and big formerly-fat Mike.

      Delete
    15. "We know where you live" is a threat, plain and simple.

      Of course it's a threat--that's the whole idea. Hell, if you don't like that, you really won't like your moral and intellectual superior's (hmm . . . that's not narrowing things down at all, is it?) latest--"Nullification by deer rifle."

      Not specifically asking the followers to do anything illegal is small comfort.

      Um--"comfort"? Those parasites don't deserve "comfort." What they've earned for themselves is fear. Let them imagine the possibility of angry men and women with scoped rifles in every tree line behind their homes, on every rooftop along their route to work (if turning decent people into felons can be considered "work"). Let the swine not enjoy one moment of sleep untroubled by nightmares.

      And then let the swine become sausage.

      Delete
    16. Oh, and about this line, again:

      "We know where you live" is a threat, plain and simple.

      Interesting that you should say that, because, after all, "We know where you live," is a pretty good description of what newspapers are saying when they publish lists of gun owners' names and addresses.

      Actually, one could argue that "We know where you live" is at least a part of the message in the letters Connecticut sent to people who tried to register their "assault weapons" and "high capacity" magazines, but were too late.

      Yep--threats in both cases, but gun owners are somehow "paranoid" if they make that observation.

      Delete
    17. "I'm not sure where exactly ss stands on all this, but I'd wager he's closer to me than he is to you and big formerly-fat Mike."

      I'm don't know if you'd be happy about where I stand Mike. I have absolutely zero sympathy for the legislators being called to task for their votes. In my earlier comment, I said that's not MY way. But I also commented that what they are doing is legal.
      And I feel no more obligated to throw anyone under the bus than you do when those on your side post comments suggesting they hope that gun owners are the first to be shot in a mass shooting as some karmic balancing act.
      If Mike V. or anyone else wanders too far beyond the limitations of the first amendment, I have no doubt they will send someone with guns to arrest them.

      Delete
    18. There you go, Kurt. Even the reasonable ssgmarkcr stands with you guys in spite of how fanatical and threatening you are.

      "the possibility of angry men and women with scoped rifles in every tree line behind their homes, on every rooftop along their route to work"

      You're delusions are really pretty funny.

      Delete
    19. There you go, Kurt. Even the reasonable ssgmarkcr stands with you guys in spite of how fanatical and threatening you are.

      Probably because it's an eminently reasonable position.

      Delete
    20. And Mike just has to twist what's been said. He didn't say that there would be people behind every tree--just that any tree or rooftop COULD have one there.

      In other words, he wasn't engaging in some delusional idea--he was talking about the paranoia these politicians may begin feeling--kinda like the paranoia your side goes on with about concealed carriers, people with "assault weapons," or people with scoped rifles.

      Delete
    21. Simon, the new official site liar.

      Kurt said: "the possibility of angry men and women with scoped rifles in every tree line behind their homes, on every rooftop along their route to work"

      Simon said: "He didn't say that there would be people behind every tree--just that any tree or rooftop COULD have one there."

      Congratulations, Simon. The coveted title is yours. You earned it. man.

      Delete
    22. More false accusations of lying.

      You keep quoting Kurt's statement as beginning with "the possibility," when, in point of fact, the actual sentence says, "Let them imagine the possibility..."

      In other words, Kurt was saying exactly what I said he was saying--let them be paranoid about this.

      Delete
  7. Who'd a thunk it....

    http://www.callthecops.net/connecticut-halts-plans-round-firearms-finding-cops-state-list/

    Connecticut halts plans to round up firearms after finding most cops in the state are on the list

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I find that very hard to believe, "most cops in the state." Of course, you guys swallow it right up 'cause it supports your position.

      Delete
    2. Mike, as a heads up, that's a satire site.

      Delete
    3. What is, call the cops? Thomas and Greg seemed to take it seriously.

      Delete
    4. Yes, the article made the rounds on facebook. They have other interesting stories like,

      "Ghost of Sir Robert Peel Appears to Police officers, Tells cops to be better!"

      There is also a similar site for the military with what I think are funnier stories, though that might be because of my background.


      "Fighting Suicide: Marines Try Posthumous Non-Judicial Punishment"

      "New Urinalysis Tests Whether Military Members ‘Actually Give A Shit’"

      http://www.duffelblog.com/

      Delete
    5. No follow-up from the dupes, the guys who seemed to take this nonsense seriously?

      Delete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thomas, send off-topic suggestions to my e-mail and I'll post 'em.

      Delete