Nothing Good Will Come From Connecticut
The police, who’ve taken an oath to uphold and protect the constitution, are saying they are willing and able to go door to door to confiscate recently banned guns. And bloggers are publishing the addresses of politicians who voted for the gun control bill.
This will get out of hand. And I hope I am wrong.
March 4th, 2014 at 2:07 am
so Linoge, are you just going to continue to be needlessly hostile, or will you provide some suggestions on what actions should be taken?
After all according to your own words they are apparently so obvious as to not warrant actual enumeration… so why not list them out, hmm?
I dislike it when people who have previously proven to be intelligent individuals who could level real arguments debase themselves with petty (self congratulatory)attacks on others. As doing so is simply a kind of intellectual masturbation, and does nothing to help the cause of individual liberty.
So why not provide advise for those in the scenario being discussed? Rather than level insults at others?
March 4th, 2014 at 5:21 am
Matt:
It appears the big difference between CT and CA is that the media in CA did not advocate that the .gov go proactive. Might have had to do with the HUGE lack of registration that occurred. Don’t know. I was told that they got maybe 5%, at most 10%, response to the estimated numbers for the second registration/ban.
I don’t recall hearing ANYTHING about it afterward.
This was twenty years ago, though.
March 4th, 2014 at 7:21 am
Gunnutmegger, something tells me the only person on Linoge’s side is Linoge oh and the State of Connecticut…
March 4th, 2014 at 8:17 am
So, is the publication of these names and addresses a use of the Soap Box? In fact, th letter specifically asks gun owners to go to these politicians homes unarmed and to ask politely, but firmly to vote to repeal this unconstitutional law.
March 4th, 2014 at 8:33 am
Yeah Lee Totc. That is called Door Knocking(not the swat kind). The latter day saints and jehovah’s witnesses do it all the time. Really scary!!!!
March 4th, 2014 at 10:29 am
Lee,
I am glad the list was published. It is easy for politicians to act cavalierly when they are removed from the consequences of the decisions they make. The existence of the list will be a reminder that they cannot hide from their actions.
I believe that the police would be quickly brought in if CT residents started knocking on these politicians’ doors. I wouldn’t personally undertake that course of action.
Will some people knock on the politicians’ doors? Probably. It will probably be the same indignant attention-whores who open-carry and seek out police confrontations. And it will make responsible gun owners look bad.
March 4th, 2014 at 2:48 pm
Linoge: ” if you told me that 2+2=78, and I told you that you were wrong, would me providing you another answer, or even the correct answer, change the fact that you were wrong?”
So, again, you’re not willing to answer a real world question. That’s fine, of course… I just don’t know how seriously I can take your position if you’re not going to state it.
So far all you’ve done is make comments of varying intended degrees of insult regarding what other people have said. That’s why I first asked you what you, personally, would do if you lived in Connecticut.
It seems to be a valid question, and the consistency with which you avoid it suggests much. It seems like the alternatives as they presently stand are to conform with the law as written, or to not.
As far as I can intuit from your posts, what you appear to be willing to do is… nothing. And hey, as I’ve said before, there’s nothing wrong with doing nothing. This issue is really important for some, less for others and not at all for others still. I think the quote “Defending our rights from the ramparts” wildly misrepresents your actual intent, but chasing down self-aggrandizing bloggers who are ‘all hat and no cattle’ on the internet would be a full time job for a thousand people.
Append a “Trolling those who are” and stick a “while I sit on my couch” to your blogs motto, though, and you’d take care of the inaccuracy issue right away.
March 4th, 2014 at 2:58 pm
I don’t see door-to-door searches and confiscation at oh-dark-thirty being likely. I don’t think the pols would care if a few cops die, and I’m sure some cops relish the thought of putn’ the hammer down on some yahoos. But it’s too confrontational, makes for bad headlines, to easy to paint the politicians in a bad light. I see a much more corrosive enforcement method of a slow grind on gun owners, denying building permits and renewal of voting registration, rigorous enforcement of traffic and “safety” laws, and general harassment using the blunt application of other law, until the person “comes into compliance.” Marginalize gun owners, hold it over them, tell them to their faces “we could come ANY TIME if you don’t get in line on X, Y, Z.” That makes no headlines that pols won’t like, only the “good” kind, like “Fred Smith was arrested for DUI, blew a 0.1, but was found in possession of several illegal unregistered assault weapons.”
Scariest part is that other than overturning or changing the law, I don’t see any good way to fight that.
March 4th, 2014 at 6:18 pm
I am sorry; were you trying to use your wall-to-wall assumptions, positively high-larious attempts at impugning my honor, and adorably transparent lies to encourage me to answer a question that was irrelevant then and is still irrelevant now?
*giggle*
Thanks. I needed a good laugh, and it seems you were all-too eager to oblige. Great chat.
March 4th, 2014 at 7:31 pm
Et tu, Brute?
March 4th, 2014 at 8:10 pm
I find it odd that you’d consider a question regarding what you would do in CT irrelevant in a discussion about… what people should do in CT. At least, it seems odd until I allow for the likelihood that you’re just here to troll rather than be constructive.
The reason I’m left with assumptions is that you’ve refused to answer any direct questions. When you dodge all questions, subsequently complaining about people making assumptions seems a bit counter-intuitive.
I’m not ‘impugning your honor’, Linoge. I’m just curious if you know what the words you use actually mean. If it’s just a catchy slogan, hey… cool. If you were actually SERIOUS about what you claim to be your blogs motto, then you have some learning and growing to do.
March 4th, 2014 at 9:32 pm
Frankly, how many of us CT gun owners are sick of being picked on when we aren’t being ignored & marginalized?
As I said on another site, I don’t care what happens to the politicians on that list. They made their beds and they can lay down in them.
And I find it amusing that someone who attacked me and called me names for referring to open carry zealots as attention whores (which I still believe) is suddenly so concerned that a CT owner might knock on a CT politicians door and somehow make him look bad in another state. What a hypocrite!
March 4th, 2014 at 10:48 pm
Hell Gunnutmegger I will call you names for calling us open carriers attention whores. I much prefer to be called a manwhore or manslut. I get more attention from my concealed gun than my open carry pistol….
March 5th, 2014 at 1:46 am
Paul, if you open carry a long gun while videotaping yourself and seeking confrontations with law enforcement, well that is what I was expressing disgust about. Those people are attention-whores.
But simply open carrying is not the same thing.
March 5th, 2014 at 6:15 am
Yeah not really thrilled when those guys use cameras to set the theme. Cops show up see cameras waiting and know they are being used. Generally when you open carry rifle or pistol they just show up and leave. I consider it poor taste in states where rifle carry is legal already. Would be more understanding in places where the goal is civil disobedience and setting up a legal challenge.