Round Up (Tens of Thousands of) Gun Registration Scofflaws, Rants Hartford Courant Editorial Board



A bit of miltary wisdom has it that you should never give an order you know won't be obeyed. Issuing such an order accomplishes nothing except to undermine your authority and expose the extent to which, no matter what enforcement mechanisms are in place, you rely upon voluntary compliance. But now that Connecticut's resident class of politically employed cretins has awoken to the fact that, in their state, like everywhere else, people overwhelmingly disobey orders to register their weapons, they're acting like this is a shocking revelation. They're also promising to make those who tried to comply, but missed the deadline regret the effort (proving the point of the openly defiant). And the politicians' enablers in the press are screaming for the prosecution of "scores of thousands" of state residents who, quite predictably, flipped the bird at the government.

Three years ago, the Connecticut legislature estimated there were 372,000 rifles in the state of the sort that might be classified as "assault weapons," and two million plus high-capacity magazines. Many more have been sold in the gun-buying boom since then. But by the close of registration at the end of 2013, state officials received around 50,000 applications for "assault weapon" registrations, and 38,000 applications for magazines.

Some people actually tried to comply with the registration law, but missed the deadline. The state's official position is that it will accept applications notarized on or before January 1, 2014 and postmarked by January 4. But, says Dora Schriro, Commissioner of the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, in a letter to lawmakers, anybody sufficiently law-abiding but foolish enough to miss that slightly extended grace period will have to surrender or otherwise get rid of their guns.

Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection

This, of course, is the eternally fulfilled fear of those who oppose registration of things governments don't like—that allowing the government to know about them will result in their eventual confiscation. Such confiscation, despite assurances to the contrary, occurred in New York, California, and elsewhere. Connecticut has accomplished something special, though, by making "eventual" a synonym for "right now."

You know who won't have to surrender their weapons? People who quietly told the state to fuck off.

This successful example of mass defiance horrifies the editorial board of the Hartford Courant, which shudders at the sight of the masses not obeying an order that, history, tells us, never had a shot at wide compliance. According to them:

It's estimated that perhaps scores of thousands of Connecticut residents failed to register their military-style assault weapons with state police by Dec. 31….

…the bottom line is that the state must try to enforce the law. Authorities should use the background check database as a way to find assault weapon purchasers who might not have registered those guns in compliance with the new law.

A Class D felony calls for a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Even much lesser penalties or probation would mar a heretofore clean record and could adversely affect, say, the ability to have a pistol permit.

If you want to disobey the law, you should be prepared to face the consequences.

Such shock! Such outrage!

But compliance with gun registration would have been a historical aberration. Gun restrictions of all sorts breed defiance everywhere they're introduced. About 25 percent of Illinois handgun owners actually complied when that state's registration law was introduced in the 1970s, according to Don B. Kates, a criminologist and civil liberties attorney, writing in the December 1977 issue of Inquiry. Then, when California began registering "assault weapons" in 1990, The New York Times reported after the registration period came to a close that "only about 7,000 weapons of an estimated 300,000 in private hands in the state have been registered."

Similar defiance occurred in Australia, Canada, and many European countries. People, unsurprisingly, seem to think that being armed is not a bad thing, and that governments can't be trusted.

Can't imagine why.

Here's the thing: Laws rely, almost entirely, on voluntary compliance, with enforcement efforts sufficient for a tiny, noncompliant minority. If a large number of people to whom a law applies find the law repugnant—and a majority of a group, consisting of scores of thousands of people, constitutes a large number—than the law is unenforceable, no matter how many politicians and newspaper editorial writers think it's a swell idea. Governments that try enforcement, anyway, will be stuck in a pattern of escalating brutality and declining legitimacy.

Gun registration, let alone confiscation has, always and everywhere, fallen into that "unenforceable" category. We saw the same phenomenon with Prohibition, and we've also seen it with drugs.

To insist, now, that Connecticut authorities try to chase down "scores of thousands" of gun owners (using background check records that don't actually prove they still own the forbidden firearms) displays wild ignorance of the limits of government power. It also expresses disgusting deference to authority at the expense of any respect for liberty—an immature morality that sees no good beyond obedience to rules. And, it's sheer lunacy.

NEXT: Why It's So Hard to Figure Out What the Stimulus Did

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. To insist, now, that Connecticut authorities try to chase down “scores of thousands” of gun owners

    Not to mention that in Connecticut, there is no county government, so this duty would fall on the state or the town/city. Most towns are completely uninterested in doing such a thing, as many don’t even have police forces and they sure don’t waste money on stupid shit like this, so it would fall on the state. Have fun, state police!

    1. I dunno, sounds like an awesome law enforcement jobs program!

      1. I’m sure there’s a federal subsidy in there somewhere.

        1. Sure, homeland security grant. Since those “heavily armed” miscreants obviously harbor anti government sentiments there is a serious danger that they could become radicalized and form a domestic terror threat or supply the heavy weapons they possess to other terror threats.

        2. Considering everyone understood the real purpose of this law was to allow them to create a database they could use to confiscate weapons, you shouldn’t be surprised about the lack of interest. And yeah, the current people running the fed would love to help set up the gun confiscation database, so a subsidy to help the state punish those that didn’t suck the government cock being proffered is definitely a likely scenario.

          1. What are you talking about? No one is talking about confiscation. It’s only in your deranged imagination that “Authorities should use the background check database as a way to find assault weapon purchasers who might not have registered those guns in compliance with the new law” could possibly mean confiscation. No one is saying that “[i]f you want to disobey the law, you should be prepared to face the consequences” means those consequences means confiscation.

            Only someone paranoid about how a, like, totally trustworthy government would do something so many good people say it won’t do.

            1. You either didn’t read the article or any of the links or you forgot the “Sarcasm” tag. Either way I think you accidentally clicked into the wrong site.

              1. If you don’t understand something, why comment on it? If you’re confused ask.

                And, be tee dub, I did not accidentally click into the wrong site.

    2. The gentleman who runs Sipsey Street Irregulars has already pointed this out in his open letter to the ConnSP. It basically boils down to “don’t forget one thing: A good supply of body bags.”

  2. To insist, now, that Connecticut authorities try to chase down “scores of thousands” of gun owners (using background check records that don’t actually prove they still own the forbidden firearms) displays wild ignorance of the limits of government power.

    Never underestimate the government’s ability to regulate or ban something through sheer force of will.

    I shudder at the thought of how many citizens of this state are about to get legally raped (while a gleeful media cheers the activity on).

    If you want to disobey the law, you should be prepared to face the consequences.

    Oh, and how many delicious reversals can we think of in this situation that would horrify the editorial board?

    1. Stay on the plantation – its *against the law* to run away.

    2. They’ll just make the background-check records available to the hardworking state bureaucracy of Connecticut. Working with their Federal partners, they’ll scour their records and soon confirm that the People’s Enemies List is full of suspected tax cheats, copyright pirates, child abusers, slumlords, and sweatshop operators. But don’t worry – after a few home visits by the appropriate authorities I’m sure they’ll see the error of their ways and give up those nasty guns.

    3. Never underestimate the government’s ability to regulate or ban something through sheer force of will.

      Do you get paid to say this or do you like it when I laugh? Tucille lists several examples of the state failing to do any such thing.

      1. I guarantee they will royally screw up some perfectly decent people’s lives while in the process of trying though.

        1. The police will use this as excuse # 5006 for why they need to use military levels of force for misdemeanor warrants.

          “With the number of unregistered assault weapons on the streets, we can’t take any chances”

    4. I thought much the same thing of “If you want to disobey the law, you should be prepared to face the consequences.”

      Considering that it is against the law to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, the state of Connecticut and this editorial board might want to consider what consequences they may face. Considering that the people whose rights they wish to violate are well-armed and numerous, those consequences may be harsh.

    5. I wouldn’t recommend standing within 3 feet of any member of the editorial board in public. One M.O.A. at 500yds is only 5 inches but a “safety” margin is always a good thing.

  3. Authorities should use the background check database as a way to find assault weapon purchasers who might not have registered those guns in compliance with the new law.

    Huh, they told us the background checks would not be kept in a database as de facto registration. Color me shocked.

  4. Is there anything more satisfying than seeing gun-grabbers wallow in their own impotence?

    It must truly come as a shock to the hard core believers in the power of government that gun control is not just politically non-viable, but practically as well because they’re outnumbered by gun owners and local governments that have no interset in enforcing laws contrary to the desire of the people.

    1. “Is there anything more satisfying than seeing gun-grabbers wallow in their own impotence?”

      Their tear-filled concession speechs at the end of their failed re-election campaigns…

  5. “scores of thousands”

    Psh. Would’a been more impressed with “tens of bi-thousands”

    1. NTTAWWT.

  6. And the politicians’ enablers in the press are screaming for the prosecution of “scores of thousands” of state residents who, quite predictably, flipped the bird at the government.

    Defiance? In my Total State? Drone them all!
    Destroy these anti-government terrorists, now!

    But seriously, this just shows that government is nothing but brute force and ignorance, which why government is so good at waging war, and so bad at everything else.

    1. Judging by the war on terror I’m not they’re very good at the later either.

      1. Of course. Nouns don’t wear uniforms. Or have a capitol.

      2. Well it is quite good at the killing people part of waging war. It has a bit more of a checkered result when it comes to successful resolution of said wars.

    2. Eventually more people will wake up to the fact that the only things government actually accomplishes are institutionalized theft and making rules against doing what people want to do.

      Abolishing government would cause world peace. People don’t make wars, only governments do.

      Write me in in 2016: .
      I’ll fire the whole damn government!

  7. I will give the Hartford Courant credit. The entire point of registration is to eventually make gun owners criminals and lock them up. At least the Courant has dropped the mask and being honest about why they support these laws.

    1. ^^^^ THIS ^^^^^

      The whole push for the law was about a database they could use to confiscate weapons or criminalize people that they didn’t like.

    2. There is no reason a newspaper needs more than eight pages a day.

      1. Those pesky editorial staffs are the equivalent of bayonet lugs or the dreaded flash suppressor.

        No one needs an Assault paper.

  8. Connecticut is full of kulaks and wreckers!

  9. Reading the posted letters to the editor about in the Courant about this. Its terrifying.

    1. For those of us on mobile, please copypasta.

      1. There are a few.
        This is the most benign so far.
        Letter to the editor
        12:13 p.m. EST, February 18, 2014

        What’s the problem with registering guns when everyone registers their cars, etc.?
        I’m sick to tears of people who cite the Second Amendment who haven’t a clue why it’s there — namely, because at the time (less than 250 years ago) it was constitutionally forbidden to have a standing army.
        If Ms Aron and others want to support the Second Amendment, join the National Guard. The only reason she’s moving to New Hampshire is cheap booze and low taxes.

        1. namely, because at the time (less than 250 years ago) it was constitutionally forbidden to have a standing army.

          That is going to come as a hell of a surprise to the Army, since they site June 1775 as their birth date.

          It is amazing how stupid these people are. And that they think everyone else is stupid is the worst part.

          1. namely, because at the time (less than 250 years ago) it was constitutionally forbidden to have a standing army.

            I was going to ask exactly when that was rescinded.

          2. They are indeed stupid but not entirely incorrect. There is no specific part of the Constitution which prevents a standing army, however there is not one which allows it either and the very different constitutional treatment of the Army Navy is pretty clear evidence that the intent was that America would not have a large standing army but rather a small professional officer corps supplemented by the State and local millitia’s

        2. Personally – I would ask why we’re registering our cars?

          1. Good question.

          2. I think it’s to finance the DMV, which exists to register cars…

          3. You’d think any ‘road taxes’ could be wrapped up into and collected by the insurance company – along with licensing drivers in the first place.

            I mean, its not like the DMV in (at least some) states (like CA and AZ) have any problem with 3rd party fee collectors.

            1. In Pennsylvania we don’t even have DMVs. There are driver’s license centers to get your picture taken and take your driving test, but car registration are done by private firms contracted by the state. Our local one is in an office attached to a car repair shop.

          4. It’s a tax primarily. And makes it so the police can find out who owns a car more easily.

            1. The tax can be collected through the insurance carrier.

              And police finding a car easier is not, by itself a reason to do this. There’s lot’s of things we don’t allow the police to do even though it’d make their job easier.

        3. The only reason she’s moving to New Hampshire is cheap booze and low taxes.

          And that’s something worthy of derision because….?

          1. We favor high quality Booze.

            1. Quality is not always tied to price. For example, Ezra Brooks is pretty cheap, but it’s great quality for the price.

              1. I prefer to use ‘cheap’ in its connotation of shoddy workmanship and low quality, rather than as a synonym for ‘inexpensive’, as something can be cheap and not cheap at the same time.

                1. Inexpensive booze, then.

                2. And vice-versa, there are plenty of things that are expensive in cost yet lacking in quality. Take politicians for instance.

              2. I will check that brand out when my current bottle of Knob Creek is empty. Thanks!

        4. Doesn’t HIV kill more people than “military-style assault weapons”? So why shouldn’t we register people who are HIV+? Is there a constitutional right to have a fatal, contagious disease, and keep it a secret?

          1. It’s been claimed as a right to privacy, even though it’s a communicable disease.

      2. This one is slightly troubling.

        Letter to the editor
        12:13 p.m. EST, February 18, 2014

        To Judy Aron, who left Connecticut because she thought her Second Amendment rights were being trampled on, I can only say good riddance [Feb. 16, Opinion, “Gun Control Sent Me Packing”].

        No one was punishing her. No one was asking anything of her except to be a responsible member of the community. If she’d rather “live free or die,” then go for it. We will not miss her.

        1. Oh, the sweet sounds of impotent rage! It’s sublime to my ears!

        2. I’m sure Connecticut is much, much safer without the likes of Judy Aron roaming about.

          1. Especially for criminals.

        3. Looking on the bright side, if all the people who actually care about freedom do leave CT, then the proggies will have it all to themselves and they can turn it into another glorious progressive utopia warning to other states not to go full retard, just like Detroit.

          1. I have it on good authority from noted erudite scholar (and owner of many leather-bound books) Melitha Harrith-Perry that Detroit was the product of TOO LITTLE government, not necesarrily SIX FUCKING DECADES OF ONE-PARTY RULE….

          2. When it fails, they blame their neighbors for “loopholes” and allowing people to evade their laws.

            See the whining about “lax” state laws allowing people to buy “assault weapons” in Nevada and bring them to California.

            See MADD in the 1980s complaining about “blood borders”.

      3. This is a comment on one of the few pro-gun letters.

        Pam Bergren ? Top Commenter

        You think the fact that owners of Tommy guns have to register the fact that they own them—-is somehow going to eliminate your gun ownership????? SEE—–it is paranoid, fearful little men like you, who try and turn this registration into a giant gun grab. It is NOT overzealous or draconian to ask that those who feel they must own a gun that shoots off 100 rounds a minute, to come forth and say who you are. PLEASE—stop with this 2nd Amendment crap. The Amendment says “FOR A WELL REGULATED MILITIA”. Why do you conveniently forget that part that says WHY you can own one. If one did not come forward and list your name with the State—-then you ARE a criminal, so if the shoe fits, wear it. I shall encourage Law enforcement to start rounding up every single one who chose to break this law, and give them the strongest penalty they can………You have no rights.

        1. How is that pro-gun?

          1. Sorry, the letter was, this is a comment on the site where the letter was, I misread you.

        2. The second amendment doesn’t say “For a well regulated milita,” it says “a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,” which is a completely different meaning.

          1. And it was well understood that ‘the security of a free state’ may mean that the citizens would have to take up arms against their government.

            1. Right, because the government has to have a well regulated militia, it is important that everyone has access to arms to be able to protect themselves from said government.

          2. And it explains the registration law, which is perfectly reasonable.

            After all, who needs a “free state?”


        3. When I right click on Pam’s comment one of the options is “translate to English”. I guess Google doesn’t understand “New Speak”.

          Pam you are welcome to join the group that Bill Clinton defined when he set the Rules of Engagement for 4th Generation Warfare. Be careful about calling for people to be killed for their own safety, you might be putting your own name on someone else’s list.

    2. Other than write letters to the editor, they’re essentially impotent. It’s not like they’re going to approach their armed neighbors and demand they surrender their weapons.

      1. Anonymous tips

      2. What Scruffy said.

      3. This is Connecticut. Good fences make good neighbors. Your neighbors shouldn’t know jack and shit about you if you don’t want them to.

    3. Also – CT is horrible. I lived there for 3 and a half years (in the military). These people charge property tax on *cars*.

      To get out of it I had to fill out a 2 page (legal pad length pages) that sought to find *any* little link between me and CT that could be used to justify taxing the fuck out of me.

      1. yeah not only do they charge us property taxes on our vehicles, a few years back stopped using a vehicles mileage against it in determining the value so they can charge even more in taxes. I registered a 94 f150 with about 100k miles on it and according to kelly blue book and a couple others that it was worth about 1500 bucks. Not according to my state though..they said it was worth 3 grand cuz they don’t care how many miles it has. Oh and then they also jacked up pistol permit renewal fees from 35 bucks to 75 and that might not be so bad if you didn’t need the permit to even buy a handgun.

    4. I can’t even articulate reasonably what I am seeing on this newspaper’s website. The idealogical gap between what I am reading and what I know to be reality is staggering.

      No drug warrior, no gay-bashing minor southern cleric, no generic tax-the-rich liberal, no die-hard AGW mouthpiece, no modern American human being could ever be so absolutely spiteful and downright ignorant of the rights of another person. And yet here is the proof. Right on this page.

      These letters are advocating for the mass imprisonment of more than a hundred thousand formerly law-abiding citizens, mass fines levied against probably sparse assets, separation and dissolution of their families, stripping them of not only their right to keep any arms, but even their admitedly weak ability to contest further infringement.

      All I can say is that this is wrong.

    1. The Army has had urban combat sites for decades. I don’t think they are practicing for confiscation.

      1. Yeah, considering that the Army does a feth-ton of MOUT overseas its not surprising that they’d have a lot of domestic MOUT training sites.

        1. They have had an entire town complete with actors at JRTC at Folk Polk since the 1990s.

          1. #$%& that place….If I could call the Lightning of God down from the heavens, I would smite Fort Polk into a smoking hole!

            /rant off

            1. It is one of the worst shit holes in planet earth. Remember, they closed down Fort Ord and built JRTC at Polk in the early 1990s. God forbid they keep open a post in a nice place or close a post that had for decades been considered the worst place imaginable to be sent.

              1. Its the military – you know that.

                Back in the mid 90’s the Navy has three RTC’s and was looking to close two of them.

                Did they pick one of the two newer ones situated in places with decent climates (San Diego and Jacksonville, FL)? Fuck no they didn’t – they kept open Great Lakes. Fething pre-WW2 construction and miserable weather 6 months out of the year.

                1. Orlando, not Jacksonville.

                  I went to RTC Orlando in ’88.

                2. You have to be a Yankee if you think they really have 6 months of “good weather” a year, 2, 3 months max in a good year. The place was a worn out, run down slum in 1970. And it’s too close to Chicago.

            2. Fort Polk is already a smoking hole in the swamp! Fort Polk laughs at your godly fires from heaven.

    2. Wow, something other than infowars ran that story. Color me surprised…

  10. “You should never give an order you know won’t be obeyed. Issuing such an order accomplishes nothing except to undermine your authority and expose the extent to which, no matter what enforcement mechanisms are in place, you rely upon voluntary compliance.”

    This is one of the things I liked about living in Mexico.

    When the cops aren’t really under the control of politicians, it can and does lead to problems, but when cops feel free to ignore rules they consider ridiculous, there are certain advantages, too.

    Any elementary school teacher can tell you that the easiest way to treat people unfairly is to treat them all the same, and a good cop’s job is to keep the peace–not to inflict the will of politicians on people who are minding their own business.

    One good definition of a totalitarian state is as a place where the will of politicians is enforced by the police universally.

    Blessed are the lawbreakers! Where would we be without them?

    “Blessed is the one whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered.

    Blessed is the one whose sin the Lord does not count against them and in whose spirit is no deceit.”

    —-Psalm 32: 1-2

  11. Hey, editorial board of the Hartford Courant, run this through Google Translate:

    Molon labe.

    (Hint: it’s Greek.)

    1. Leave Molly’s labia out of this!

      1. I dunno, what does she look like?

        *ducks and runs from room screaming “this is why there are no libertarian women!!!!*

          1. *continues screaming, now incoherently and in alarm*

            1. Hey, I took a look at your Ludophilia page. I saw no mention of Ambush Alley’s “Force on Force”.

              What am I going to do with my just finished painted Taliban groups and US Army Stryker brigades?

          2. Not clicking that.

  12. Replace “guns” with “Mexicans” and they’d never advocate a round up.

    1. What about Mexicans with guns?

      1. Which ones, the cartels, the army, the federales or the vigilantes?

        1. Obviously the cartels and vigilantes don’t have guns – Mexico has a strict gun-control regime.

  13. “When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law.”

    Frederic Bastiat

    1. I never understood why that was supposed to be cruel. Fuck the law.

      1. Maybe it depends on how old someone is when they face that choice. For me I was quite young when I discovered that the law was a bunch of arbitrary bullshit. My parents had instilled a moral code in me, so it was a pretty easy choice.

        It becomes a very real problem when someone discovers that the law is bullshit, but has no morality to fall back on.

        That’s how you end up with these inner city kids killing each other like animals.

        1. I don’t think the law has anything to do with that. Those kids are animals because they have no morality. No law enforcement can ever be swift enough to keep them from breaking the law and doing bad things if they have no morality.

          Sure, the law has some deterrent effect, but I think we overrate that. What keeps people from committing crimes is their own sense of inner morality.

          1. If the law was respectable, then they might respect the law and those who enforce it.

            Because the law is not respectable, neither it nor its enforcers are worthy of respect.

            1. I think you are optimistic. If they truly lack morality, the only law they would respect would be a law that was so fierce and swift even they were forced to fear it.

              1. If the law was respectable, then people might be quick to report violations and trust the people who enforce it.

                Alas that is not the case.

      2. When they throw you in prison, it is cruel.

        1. Bastiat seemed to be saying that it was cruel to have to lose one’s respect for the law, but why would a Frenchman writing in 1850 ever have had any respect for the law? He had a continuous written history of something like 1900 years of legal cruelty to look back on.

          1. But it really sucks to live in a society where you have no respect for the law. Living in such a place constantly places you in a position of either risking criminal conduct or compromising your morality by going along with it.

            One of the communist dissidents, I forget who but I want to say it was a Cuban, said when you live in a totalitarian society it takes almost inhuman courage to maintain even the most basic morality. I think they were right and that is what Bastiat was getting at.

  14. “We’re going to need more boxcars.”

      1. Its just powdered sugar.

  15. So what’s the body count going to be from the police raids that would result from this? For bonus points, break it down by gun owner deaths, non-gun owner deaths (wrong door raids), and police officer hero deaths.

    1. The members of the editorial board should be the first to go in the doors

    2. The deaths will only show how dangerous these citizens and their guns are, and how the public needs to be disarmed.

    3. Given that there are tens of thousands of known unreasonably armed and dangerous anti-government criminals with unregistered weapons, I’m going to guess the death toll would be in the tens of thousands. Every single one of these terrorists is going to necessitate a middle-of-the-night no-knock raid by heavily-armed SWAT teams just itching to see the perp get twitchy.

      Naturally, the spike in gun violence will be used to justify the call for more restrictive gun laws.

      1. Exactly. If I were have a brain hemorrhage and decide that I wanted to steal everyone’s guns this is how I would go about it. Or, arrest them at work and get the gun after the home is depopulated – safer. The only way to stop this, as far as I can see, is for the gun owners, once this starts occurring, to be proactive in targeting LE and their ilk. I don’t see this happening.

    4. Don’t forget the dog deaths.

    5. People have been preparing for this for many years. Comms are in place. Tactics are set.
      On the first gun owner death, the Clinton Bosnian Rules of Engagement go into effect.
      God help us all if that happens.

      1. It will take more than one or two, those can be demonized in the media and the real cause covered up. I think it will take upwards of 20 people murdered in middle of the night SWAT home invasions before people decide to take it to the authors of their misery. In a “dark humor” sort of way it is amusing. By going after scary black rifles that are 200 to 300 yard weapons they opened a major can of worms. They totally ignored the really dangerous (to them) bolt action rifles that are more suited to reaching out and touching someone. Does anyone else think they might be having an “Oh Shit” moment?

  16. Shorter Hartford Courant: “WRECKERS!!!!!! KULAKS!!!!! To the gulags with them!!!!”

  17. “If you want to disobey the law, you should be prepared to face the consequences”

    I wonder what the newspaper would say if the government devoted that same level of scrutiny and enforcement into scrupilously tracking down and deporting every illegal alien they could find.

    I have no doubt they would be shrieking in protest about it.

    1. And if you want to advocate, encourage, and incite the violation of my God given unalienable rights, YOU should be prepared to face the consequences.

      “Reach out, reach out and touch someone. Reach out, reach out and just say ‘Hi!'”

  18. Anybody else watching what’s going on in Ukraine?

    Apparently, they’ve sealed off the center of Kiev, now. Looks like they’re about to go all Tienanmen on the protestors.

    I bet all those ethnic Ukrainians wish they had guns at home right now.

    And if Obama has a good working relationship with Putin, then that’s a fucking disgrace. At least Chamberlain thought he was getting “peace in our time”. At least FDR thought he was getting Stalin’s cooperation in winning the War.

    Obama’s just doing it for the photo ops and to goose out a couple more points at the polls. Oh, and what the Europeans are doing (nothing) is pretty pathetic, too. A great way for the EU to counter American Exceptionalism is to stop waiting for the U.S. to do something every time something bad happens in their own backyard.

      1. Funny, I was thinking the same thing – he and Mrs Doktor Groovus both.

    1. There’s no shortage of fascist and openly neo-Nazi elements among the protesters, and they’ve made the most noise about creating new instability.

    2. I just went to the web site of the Ukranian embassy. Protests? Whatever are you talking about, young man?

    3. If they do that, it’ll start a civil war. The Ukrainians don’t have the guns they need but I think they have some guns.

      1. “In procedure and in content the laws “passed” by the Ukrainian parliament in mid-January contravene the most basic rights of modern constitutional democracies: to speech, assembly, and representation. Although they concern the most fundamental aspects of political life and transform the constitutional structure of the Ukrainian state, these measures were not subjected to even the barest of parliamentary procedures. There were no public hearings, there was no debate in parliament, and there was no actual vote. There was a show of hands in parliament and an estimate of how many hands were raised. Photographic evidence indicates that rather few deputies actually raised their hands. The standard electronic voting system, which creates an official record, was not used at all.

        The deputies?those who apparently raised their hands?have all but voted themselves out of existence.”…..?insrc=toc

        Except for the protestors, they’re Belarus, now.

        Without support from the West, they might as well be back in the Soviet Union. At best, it’s like they’re in the Soviet Bloc.

        And Obama doesn’t have anything to say about it? The important thing for him is to get a photo op with Putin over Syria and Iran. …and to give Putin his way with them, too. You’d think Obama would at least say something. I guess Obama’s too afraid of Putin to criticize him, too?

  19. military-style assault weapons

    That says a lot, doesn’t it? They are going after a style of gun. Look out, that style is extra-dangerous!

    And the whole “assault weapon” thing is nonsense anyway, because these are not really military weapons, any more than a Honda Civic with a hood scoop, racing stripe, and spoiler is a “race car.”

    1. “This rear spoiler on my front-wheel drive car helps it go fasta!”

  20. Authorities should use the background check database as a way to find assault weapon purchasers who might not have registered those guns in compliance with the new law.”

    ..something opponents of ‘background checks’ were always told would never happen, as the ‘sensible rule’ of background checks was to ensure that NO FELONS get guns! Why would you oppose licensing! Its ONLY to protect peaceful people from crazies? … well, until we want to use it for something else, but then its too late to complain? Complainers get flagged now for extra scrutiny!

    Seriously = they seem to be doing everything possible to give legitimacy to the people who oppose the expansion of the “Universal Background Check” because its fucking obvious they don’t give a wet shit about stopping criminals, but will do anything they can to collect databases of legal gun owners for *future reference*, just in case that day should ever come when they have some legal excuse to start rounding up weapons from perfectly peaceful citizens…

    1. they don’t give a wet shit about stopping criminals, but will do anything they can to collect databases of legal gun owners for *future reference*

      I think it’s more likely they don’t see any difference between legal gun owners and criminals.

  21. I was in Hartford last fall, and I was told that it has some of the worst crime- and poverty-related stats in the region.

    1. Outside of the rich bedroom communities along the New York border, Connecticut is one of the poorest and most backward states in the union. Hartford, New Britain, New Haven, pretty much every city of any size is a horrific, dysfunctional ghetto.

      1. But it still manages to be just about the highest tax state in the union. How do the poor folks fare?

        1. How do the poor folks fare?

          Probably not very well. Although they don’t have much taxable income anyway.

          The high taxes are more so the rich prog-tards in those aforementioned bedroom communities can feel good about themselves and pat themselves on the back for “caring” so much about the poor that they’re willing to pay higher taxes. Just so long as they don’t have to actually come in contact with any of those icky poor people.

        2. The po’ do not pay taxes.

          But they do elect the taxers.

  22. Do background checks indicate whether or not a gun was actually purchased or the type of firearm? I don’t believe that is the case in my state (PA), the background check merely informs the dealer on the eligibility of a particular potential buyer. I have to assume that this is the case in CT because if not, they already have their Assault Weapon Registry. So I assume that the editorial writer is hoping for search warrants to be issued based merely on the fact that a background check has been run on a particular person and the person has not registered an ‘assault weapon’, with no evidence that the person is in possession of an ‘assault weapon.’ Or perhaps if a background check has been run on an individual, that information would be readily available to a State Police Officer when he would perform a warrants check during a traffic stop of other encounter, giving the officer the necessary probable cause to conduct a search. Good luck getting that through the court challenges that would surely result.

    1. The forms you fill out have a spot for the type and manufacturer of the weapon.

    2. We have seen the preparations in Boston. With such danger at hand, all rights are suspended, and government forces should proceed with utmost expedition and secrecy to Connecticut, to seize and destroy all paramilitary stores.

  23. First, however, the registration period should be reopened. It should be accompanied by a public information campaign.

    Although willful noncompliance with the law is doubtless a major issue, it’s possible that many gun owners are unaware of their obligation to register military-style assault weapons and would do so if given another chance.

    Of course, most of the people disobeying the law are only doing so out of ignorance, and the benevolent and merciful government should forcibly relieve them of their ignorance and give them another chance to return to the almighty government’s good graces. Those who fail to prostrate themselves sufficiently and beg for mercy, of course, must be dealt with most severely, lest their traitorous tendencies spread like a disease through the state.

  24. Wonder what would happen if they all showed up at city hall saturday and turned themselves in.

    1. I would laugh at the pants shitting hysteria.

  25. Hey, governor M !! Round me up. I sold my house stopped paying your high taxes and left your state of depravity after 33 years. Buh, bye and bang bang. I am legal among legal gun owners.

  26. The right thing to do of course is to merely “turn in” the bullets.

  27. If you want to disobey the law, you should be prepared to face the consequences.

    Unless you’re a reporter refusing to turn over subpoenaed information!!! Then we need a Shield Law to protect Freedom of the Press!!!

  28. I thought no one was talking about confiscation? How about that? Yet another lie from the mouths of the left.

  29. Of course the Courant doesn’t have the nads to allow comments on their editorial.

  30. Also, we have been promised repeatedly that the background checks would never be used for confiscation. Yet, what do the fainters at the Courant suggest be used for this very purpose?

    Yeah, I can’t imagine why we don’t trust them.

  31. But what if you entered the country illegally, downloaded music and video from pirate websites, or refuse to buy insurance? What if a president breaks laws to do his own thing?

    “No that’s totally different”

  32. Jeez…with all of those scary and dangerous “assault-style” weapons in the hands of all of those law-breakers in CN, I’m surprised that there’s anyone left alive in the state.

  33. “If you want to disobey the law, you should be prepared to face the consequences.”
    Because you’re not a cop, a banker or a telecommunication corporation.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.