[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by Tetto

The article doesn't state whether or not he is a previous felon. It doesn't define how the AK is illegal or not. If he's a previous felon he cant own any guns, right? Or did i miss something?

Or did you just make that automatic assumption from the abundance of information in the article?

Uh, an AK-47 is a fully automatic weapon. It's been illegal for years, as it should be.

"Montysko is to appear in New Britain Superior Court April 22 on charges of threatening and inciting injury to a person. He also was charged with illegal possession of weapons, including an AK-47."

Get it now?

[Tetto]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Uh, an AK-47 is a fully automatic weapon. It's been illegal for years, as it should be.

"Montysko is to appear in New Britain Superior Court April 22 on charges of threatening and inciting injury to a person. He also was charged with illegal possession of weapons, including an AK-47."

Get it now?

Uh, they sold the same version in semi-auto and called it an AK-47. It was one of the guns you had to register under the Clinton Ban...

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by Tetto

Uh, they sold the same version in semi-auto and called it an AK-47. It was one of the guns you had to register under the Clinton Ban...

Much better. A man who goes around threatening the governor is safe if he has a semi-automatic Ak-47.

[RedJacket]

Man arrested for threatening governor on web site - WFSB 3 Connecticut

Video included.

[ecofancy]

Uh oh someone let grandpa use the internet again

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by Tetto

Uh, they sold the same version in semi-auto and called it an AK-47. It was one of the guns you had to register under the Clinton Ban...

I guess you missed the part of the article where it said he was arrested for illegal weapons.

[adamz]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

I guess you missed the part of the article where it said he was arrested for illegal weapons.

I very much doubt he had a select fire AK-47. They're very, very expensive.

More likely is that he had a semiautomatic AK-47 copy that he did not register under the terms of the previous "assault weapons" ban.

I have to say that if you're going to make threats on the internet and post pictures of your guns on your facebook page, you probably should be in compliance with state laws.

[El Scorcho]

Originally Posted by hartford_renter

Oh great, you get to decide who is nuts and who gets to keep their guns!

CT is becoming a soviet style liberal dictatorship.

What exactly is a soviet style liberal dictatorship?

[caligirlz]

Originally Posted by hartford_renter

I'm sorry but the OP is the one who is "nuts". Is it nuts to point out that the majority of gun deaths come from the inner city where criminals kill other criminals or innocent bystanders?

In CT over 90% of the murders come from Hartford, New Haven, Bridgeport.

Yet for some reason, yes for some reason the liberals always point out examples of another "crazy gun guy" who is threatening someone.

We point out that all these posts are done to "fit a particular narrative" that "coincides with a liberal agenda". Gun owners are all crazy, they are the reason we have gun violence, lets ban guns.

I'm sorry but you are the one who needs to snap out of it, this state has become a 100% democrat controlled liberal bastion of spending and anti-gun anti-abortion anti-religious place.

These posts reflect the liberal delusion.

right on
Can't keep repping you

[bolillo_loco]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

Much better. A man who goes around threatening the governor is safe if he has a semi-automatic Ak-47.

So would you feel better if he threatened to run him over with his jacked up huge tire sportin' turbo diesel Ford F-250? Perhaps you'd feel better if he said he'd blow him up, or perhaps you'd feel better if he was going to grab his Louisville slugger or knife. Suppose he had a fleet of F-250s or had common legal items with which he could make a bomb or a collection of Ronco knifes and 500 genuine ash baseball bats.

Naturally, most uninformed anti gun types that know absolutely nothing about firearms seem to think that a firearm's far more deadly because it has magical point and shoot accuracy, and that they can use their ESP and ninja skills to step out of the way or of the few items I listed and or subdue the attacker. Moreover, most of them have probably not been in a fight since 5th grade recess, lack any formal or experience at fighting with any and all weapons including no weapons at all, but they come here to City Data and spout their tautology, so more types like themselves and come on down and engage in some tasty confirmation bias.

The type of firearm is not an indication of how deadly it is. He threatened one person, so any firearm of ample caliber that's a single shot would do the job. Focusing on types of weapons, collections of firearms, and the like is the misinformation of the emotional argument that defies logic and reason.

So what he had a huge "arsenal." It doesn't make him a nutter. I didn't realize that you were legally licensed to practice psychiatry and that you'd done an exhaustive study of his mental capacity.

The only insanity I've witnessed would be people that use logic, knowledge, experience and reason trying to debate with misinformed, emotional types that have little if any experience, training, and comprehension of firearms.

The entire "made threatening statements" is reaching in my opinion. Just because somebody said they were going to do something, doesn't mean that they're going to. Most of these faux portentous words are nothing but hot air. Who can claim that at some point during their lives has never threatened bodily injury and or murder of another? On the otherhand, in a nation where police look more like the Gestapo and kick in doors willy nilly, it makes perfect sense due to our jailer police state where the criminal just-us system uses cash register justice because it's big business. Crime prevention via strict laws is the myth of the corrupt government agencies that spread their agenda and propagandize their minions so they become parroting puppets of the agency their tax dollars are funding, and yet they have the gall to come here and question other people's sanity...

Any type/style/caliber firearm that's deadly on humans will do the job in the hands of somebody that knows what they're doing, while no firearm, even a machine gun will be effective in the hands of a would be attacker that doesn't have a clue what they're doing. By the way, machine guns are for grazing and supressive fire. If machine guns were so deadly, snipers around the world would be using them...

I see people whose sanity I question several times per day as they negotiate heavy pedestrian and auto traffic and travel at high speeds on the interstate whilst they're texting/using their cell phones and not even looking where they're going. These distracted sods cause far more deaths annually than any firearm or "gun nut," yet nobody wants to talk about banning cars and mobile devices because that's silly, yet said forms of travel and communication devices don't have a direct Constitutional Amendment naming and protecting them.