[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by Stylo

Thugs will never register their guns or carry proper permits. The ones responsible for most of the ~150 murders per year in the state will get their guns somehow.

I don't think we're talking about "thugs" in the traditional vein here, as much as those with a anti-government mentalities who've overdosed on NRA propaganda and FOX News.

[Mr_250]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

They make the choice to be criminals when they do not follow the law. They also can no longer be classified as "responsible" gun owner.

And this law did not require the registration of all guns. Far from it.

It requires you register any magazine that can hold 10 rounds or more...which INCLUDES many pistols NOT just assault rifles.

[Bideshi]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

I don't think we're talking about "thugs" in the traditional vein here, as much as those with a anti-government mentalities who've overdosed on NRA propaganda and FOX News.

Oh my, you absolutely turn our heads with such flattery...

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by Mr_250

It requires you register any magazine that can hold 10 rounds or more...which INCLUDES many pistols NOT just assault rifles.

Yes. How many people do you need to kill in a very short period of time? You can still kill more than 10-- You just have to comply with the registration requirements. Y'know, like people who own a car or fish at Lake Zoar.

[Sigequinox]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

The facts are that the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality, and, that gun control law is constitutional. If this law is unconstitutional, the courts will determine that.

I love the bull**** talking points about the oh-so-responsible gun owners-- Who are responsible until the law changes in a way they don't like.

Let's be clear here-- The guys you reference aren't having their guns taken away, only, their anonymity in ownership. Whether or not you trust the government is completely irrelevant. The responsible thing to do is follow the law. Or... Maybe these gun owners aren't so responsible after all?

Not true. Anyone who has been following, the ultimate goal of confiscation is so clear.

First off, registration would have done nothing to stop that sociopathic POS, or anyone like him. The only difference is he would have done so with a registered gun. The thought that more laws will stop criminals or sociopaths who break the law is insane. Do we really think lanza would wake up in the morning and say "h i can only put 10 rounds in my 30 round mags. Nevermind" it's laughable.

Two: If the goal is not to remove these guns from the state, then why can one not just go buy a new AR and register it? You know that ARs are illegal now, right? You can only register what you already have. hmmmm skeptical.

three: You cannot inherit AW's (change of ownership). So if you die, the government essentially gets to legally (but unconstitutionally) steal your private property.

Four: The law is unconstitutional. WHile no right is limitless, the Supreme Court case Heller Vs. DC already defined the protections of the second amamendment to inlude weapons of "common use". The AR-15 is about as ubiquitous today as a Smith and Wesson revolver or a Glock.

This law is a "warm fuzzy" law to make people feel safer. If you think Lanza couldn't accomplish what he did because of these laws you are completely mistaken.

[Mr_250]

You just have to comply with the registration requirements.

I agree. Requirements should be complied with. I am actually going to get my Hunting Permit (bow hunting) so I can hunt on Town owned land. Laws are laws and I understand that.

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by Sigequinox

Not true. Anyone who has been following, the ultimate goal of confiscation is so clear.

You can stop here. This is a right wing talking point. I know very, very, very few on the left-- Myself included, who support confiscation. If the rest of your post is based on this right wing fear tactic, you should rethink it.

Originally Posted by Sigequinox

First off, registration would have done nothing to stop that sociopathic POS, or anyone like him.

If that's your argument, homicide, assault, and rape should all be legal as well. The law can't totally stop it... so....

Originally Posted by Sigequinox

Two: If the goal is not to remove these guns from the state, then why can one not just go buy a new AR and register it? You know that ARs are illegal now, right? You can only register what you already have. hmmmm skeptical.

So it sounds like the law goes out of it's way to AVOID confiscation, doesn't it?

Originally Posted by Sigequinox

three: You cannot inherit AW's (change of ownership). So if you die, the government essentially gets to legally (but unconstitutionally) steal your private property.

There is no constitutional right to inheritance.

Originally Posted by Sigequinox

Four: The law is unconstitutional. WHile no right is limitless, the Supreme Court case Heller Vs. DC already defined the protections of the second amamendment to inlude weapons of "common use". The AR-15 is about as ubiquitous today as a Smith and Wesson revolver or a Glock.

The supreme court is the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality... Not the NRA or extreme right wing of the Republican party. They have previously, consistently, held that the states have rights to limit the types of weapons people can own, require registries (what do you think a CCP is?), etc. This isn't unconstitutional until they say it is.

Originally Posted by Sigequinox

This law is a "warm fuzzy" law to make people feel safer. If you think Lanza couldn't accomplish what he did because of these laws you are completely mistaken.

And my point is that if "responsible" gun owners don't comply, that they can no longer be categorized as responsible.

[smackfu]

One big negative: When someone steals an unregistered gun, it's not going to get reported.

[Tilt11]

Well if, IF, I had what falls under the new requirements, I would not register. Laws are laws, sure. But some are unjust.

These new laws were knee jerk just to say "see, see, look what we did because we care sooooo much about children ...." Rather than actually deal with what could help prevent what happened, they look at guns. Most of these new rules wouldn't have prevented what that crazy kid did.

An armed guard could have though. Responsible parenting. A better understanding of mental health could have helped. Going after legal second amendment loving people doesn't help anything except make certain people feel better about themselves

[Sigequinox]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

So I guess you're saying we need to flat out take the guns away? Is that what you're advocating for?

The new law certainly can aid in keeping weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill. Will it prevent every crime? No. But if that's the criteria for successful lawmaking you want to apply-- then we'd have no laws at all. Should vehicular homicide be legal since the law cannot prevent all occurrences?

That's a specious and ridiculous argument that I am surprised any intelligent person would make.

We don't know that the guns were stolen from the "responsible" owner, who kept them in easy access of her mentally ill son. He had used them in her presence before. We don't know that the guns weren't owned by the whole family.

Please, you know that first bolded comment is totally useless. The fact remains it IS ILEEGAL to murder someone with a gun. No one is saying it shouldn't be. The analogy is baseless.No one is advocated legal murder.

If you read the report (which I did) the guns WERE the mothers. Why she left the safe in the disturbed childs room is beyond me or anyone. I fail to see the connection between this and the laws in effect though. This has nothing to do with whether a gun has a boyonet lug (find me a single crime committed with a bayonet BTW).

How come when a muslim terrorist bombs us, we say "we need tolerance. we can't blame and admonish an entire group of people based on the actions of only a few extremists" but then when a sociopath opens up on innocent people with a gun we are allowed to blame and punish the entire population of gun owners?