Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Bob Owens Does Basic Math For Connecticut Politicians.

This is a good piece,I like what Mr. Owens has to say here.

Connecticut’s anti-gun politicians (in both parties) and the media are beside themselves in a quivering rage.

Though they passed a blatantly unconstitutional law requiring citizens to register both their “modern muskets” and the standard-capacity magazines associated with such firearms, the response of the citizenry has been an overwhelming refusal to comply.

No one knows for sure precisely how many firearms labeled “assault weapons” by the state exist in Connecticut and so a precise estimate is impossible to obtain, but the most common estimate is that a minimum of 86-percent of citizens did not register their semi-automatic firearms as required by law, and that figure may be as high as nine in 10. Standard-capacity magazines are also required to be registered with the state under the same law, and non-compliance there may be even higher, in excess of 95-percent.

Predictably, the state and it’s big government supporters are stunned.

Connecticut politicians have become so adjusted to docile citizens compliantly forfeiting their rights to more government intrusion that they simply assumed a law setting up the registration of firearms for their eventual confiscation would be obeyed without question.

They’re now scrambling for what they would term “an appropriate response.”

Behind closed doors, we can assume that they are fuming, and would like nothing more than to arrest each and every gun-owning scofflaw within the state at gunpoint, with an appropriate show of overwhelming police presence at each. To date, they’re limited to the potential threat of sending out a strongly worded letter, but have balked at even talking that step.


Do you want to know why?
Go read the rest and see Bob crunch some numbers.

The results should explain why these gun grabbing pukes are quivering in impotent rage.



Anonymous said...

Yeah, about 1 officer per 10 assault weapon (whatever that is) owners, the word CUSTER sort of rings a bell. I also wonder even if every single offender turned themselves in, do they have facilities to house that many people ?

We saw this back in 1989 in California, just another law that really does not mean much.

tsquared said...

I look at the non-compliance as citizens expressing their rights. The subjects who registered their weapons have given away their rights. We all know the difference between citizens and subjects.

The weapons in question are just un-documented weapons and most of them are black - where are Jesse and Al screaming about racist discrimination?.

Robert Fowler said...

There's really nothing they can do. How are they going to lock up over 100,000 people? And the first raid that went bad, with the death of citizen or cop, is going to start a shooting war and there is no place for these idiot pisswits to hide. They will reap what they sow. Of course it will be a object lesson for politicians in other states.

Fair Use Notice

Fair Use Statement: This site may contain copyrighted material, the use of which may not have been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: “http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml” If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.