Monday, March 17, 2014

The Truth About Guns Stirs the Pot with Ridiculous and Paranoid Suggestions

TTAG  Title of post: "Connecticut One Step Closer to Confiscation"

  CT-firearm-surrender-letter

23 comments:

  1. Mike, this article is documenting that independent sources have verified that the letters are indeed genuine. At one point, ironically, a gun publication was told that no such letter had been sent out and that perhaps it was a draft letter. In fact, we had discussed this in this post,
    http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/03/mn-gop-stands-for-mazingly-nutty.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know that, ss. I was referring to Robert Farago's inciteful post title.

      Delete
  2. So the owner has to give up a piece of property, but you gun rights advocates paranoid? Tell us, since your side will deny that forcing citizens to give up property is confiscation, what term will you use here?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Greg, in our discussions, confiscation means cops coming to the gun owners door to collect guns against the gun owner's will. You know that. But in your slippery way, you're changing a definition again.

      Delete
    2. Greg, in our discussions, confiscation means cops coming to the gun owners door to collect guns against the gun owner's will.

      If you're going to narrow the definition so drastically, it might be a good idea to make that clear up front, before you accuse others of "changing a definition."

      Delete
    3. Ah, more of the dishonest redefining of terms. Outlawing your property and then intimidating you into getting rid of it with threats of cops showing up at your door isn't confiscation--Only cops actually showing up at your door.

      Delete
    4. Mikeb, try selling that nonsense to the property owners. I ain't buying it.

      Delete
  3. Why does this have to be a test?? Actually unclear as to what's real or not.

    ReplyDelete
  4. What are you accusing TTAG of, exactly? Fabricating the letter?

    By the way, I'm starting to think that New York gun owners have no more taste for anti-gun tyranny than their sisters and brothers in Connecticut. Some good, old-fashioned civil disobedience is the order of the day (excerpt):

    The event, put on by the NY2A Grassroots Coalition, ended with a show of civil disobedience as dozens of attendees filed out of the Saratoga Springs Elks Lodge to burn NYS Police Assault Weapons Registration forms in a barbeque grill set up for the purpose.

    “We are demonstrating to New York state that we will not be registering our firearms with the state,” one protester said, tending the fire. “We refuse to register.”

    “The registration deadline is approaching, April 15, and we’re basically giving people information as to what their options are relative to registration and we’re also encouraging them to get more active in the political process so we can vote out the people who voted for the SAFE Act,” said Lisa Donovan of Ballston, Saratoga County, one of the organizers of Sunday’s event.

    “We’re basically explaining to people once they register, that gun is no longer theirs,” she said. “It’s a matter of time as to when the state will take it … It will be upon their death or when they change the law and decide to confiscate the guns that have been registered.”


    Testify, sister.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ah yes. They're so paranoid for suggesting that Connecticut may be about to do something that gun control advocates, including yourself a few weeks ago, were calling on the state to do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Including myself? I was "calling on the state" to send cops to gun owners' doors and collect their guns.

      Please show me that discussion.

      Delete
    2. Are you seriously going to go down the road of pretending you don't remember the discussions of the Hartford Courant article and associated discussions?

      Here is the link to the first post on the Courant's Op-Ed which you both acknowledged called for confiscations and seemed in support of through the conversation in the comments.
      http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/02/state-cant-let-gun-scofflaws-off-hook.html
      You didn't use the term "send cops to gun owners' doors" but you did use "confiscation" to describe the plan.

      If anyone doubted your approval of the Courant's position, however, they needed look no further than the next post that same day:
      http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/02/oregons-sb-1551-close-private-sale.html

      In this other post, you opposed an attempt to expand background checks because it would not leave a paper trail that could be utilized the way the Courant had suggested. This is quite a funny position to take if you're going to claim that you opposed the confiscation idea, but did want to ensure that it was possible. Funny and disingenuous.

      Delete
    3. RESTRICTED MILITARY/GOVERNMENT/LAW ENFORCEMENT/EXPORT USE ONLYMarch 17, 2014 at 6:34 PM

      What is a ban (or any legislative act for that matter) without enforcement?

      Submit to the authorities or face the consequences codified under applicable law.

      Delete
    4. Simon, I just reread those two long threads and nowhere did I say I support gun confiscations. You're a fucking liar, my friend, and you think you're slick to soften your position and say I "seemed to" support the idea. First you said I was calling on the state to do it. I never did that.

      I've had enough of your infuriating attempts at catching me out. When I say something you go to previous threads to find contradictions. When you don't find them you twist what was said to invent them. That makes you contentious and dishonest. Knock it the fuck off. You're a worse drag than TS with this bullshit.

      Delete
    5. Mikeb, yes or no: Do you favor taking guns away from at least some gun owners?

      Delete
    6. Greg, that's the number 1, dumbest question ever asked around here.

      Delete
    7. So you refuse to answer whether you support confiscation or not. And you wonder why we're suspicious of you.

      Delete
    8. Greg, do you really have to turn this into such a pain in the ass discussion. You know fucking well where I stand on it. I DO NOT want to see SWAT teams sent to the homes of gun owners guilty of nothing more than illegal possession of certain guns. But I am ALL FOR going to the homes of felons and mentally ill people who are known to have weapons in order to forcibly disarm them.

      Luckily you've waffled back and forth on what exactly is meant by the word "confiscation." This way you can safely say I'm for it.

      In the past you, and Robert Farago and the rest of you gun-rights fanatics have used "confiscation" to mean jack-booted government thugs kicking in the doors of honest citizens who yell "molon labe, mother-fucker" at their oppressors. You do that when you want to incite your listeners by being the grandiose victims. Then at other times you consider any single instance of gun removal to be "confiscation."

      Delete
    9. Gee, maybe that's because both are types of CONFISCATION.

      And as for what you claim not to want, Why did you oppose the Oregon background check expansion again? Oh yes! Because it wouldn't leave a paper trail that could be used to enforce a ban in the manner suggested by the Hartford Courant.

      Delete
    10. If by, "a ban in the manner suggested by the Hartford Courant" you mean door-to-door confiscations or anything like it, you're still delusional. This is grandiose victimism. You poor persecuted gun owners are sooo oppressed.

      Delete
  6. Until the law is found unconstitutional, it should be followed by all who claim to law abiding citizens.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have already found it to be unconstitutional, and besides, I don't claim to be "law abiding," only right, and morally far superior to those who would inflict such abominable laws on a once-free people.

      Delete
    2. You are not a judge and we know you are not a law abiding citizen, you have stated and proven that.

      Delete