Fair Play
By Mitch Berg
Remember when the Lower Hudson Journal News published the names and addresses of every carry permit holder in its coverage area (the northern NYC/southwest Connecticut subrban area)? When pro-Second-Amendment bloggers struck back by publishing the names and addresses of the “newspaper’s” “journalists?”
The good guys are at it again.
Last year, a small majority of Connecticut legislators passed legislation that is, as we speak, leading to the confiscation of firearms in Connecticut.
And the bloggers are at it again.
(This blog doesn’t endorse intimidation. The state needs to stop it).
March 5th, 2014 at 2:21 pm
There is a difference between “are confiscating firearms” and “will confiscate firearms”.
No one has made the claim that active confiscation IS happening.
March 5th, 2014 at 2:34 pm
Also, there is a distinct difference between “is confiscating” and “will confiscate”.
DG is the only one who ever brought up “is confiscating”. She might want to have a chat with CT State Police Spokesman Lt Paul Vance. He’s a little bit more gung-ho on moving forward with these plans than DG says he should be.
March 5th, 2014 at 2:37 pm
Oops, I didn’t realize I missed the 50 comment page break, I just thought it flitted off into the ether. You can delete #51, Mitch
March 5th, 2014 at 3:00 pm
Y’all give this waste of flesh way too much of your time. She said she read a letter that was different than the one Mitch posted. Fine.
Show us the letter, ya dumb bitch; we think you’re lying again. We’re laughing at you and anyone that would cite anything you ever wrote as anything other than the amusing ravings of an ignorant spam purse.
March 5th, 2014 at 3:17 pm
the legislation is:
Senate bill 1094/Public Act # 13-220
and
Senate bill 1160/Public Act # 13-3
they do not use the word “confiscate” they use the word “surrender”, as in you are required to “surrender” the offending weapon or ammunition
March 5th, 2014 at 3:23 pm
This is very similar to when Mitch didn’t know there was a major difference between voter registration fraud — being a jackass, filling out a voter registration card as Daffy Duck or Mickey Mouse — which creates a minor bureaucratic nuisance to correct, but there are no instances where someone tried to vote as Daffy Duck, Bugs Bunny or the Tooth Fairy.
The fuss over these letters is on a par with someone signing a voter card as Goofy or Lassie. It is a false fuss.
Voter registration fraud is a minor nuisance, mostly caused by people who make duplicate registrations because they forgot they were already registered. It is no big deal. It doesn’t change elections.
Voting illegally in an election is a serious problem, but one that happens with less frequency than people being hit by lightning twice.
Getting a letter about your assault rifle not being registered is NOT confiscation, nor can it lead to confiscation. No one can show up and just grab your gun away from you, not in Connecticut, not anywhere in the United States.
Seizure of a firearm requires due process, including a warrant. When I checked earlier this week no seizures had been made, no warrants had been issued to seize an illegal assault rifle based on those letters or based on suspicion that someone might still own a previously legal assault rifle, and no officer of any court had dragged someone into court to begin the process of taking their assault rifle away from them because they failed to register their assault rifle .
IF someone, in Connecticut or anywhere else, were taking away guns without due process, just showing up, kicking in the door, and grabbing your guns, I’d be joining you in outrage. But THAT is NOT what is happening in CT.
Do your homework, be factual. Stop pumping out the propaganda, either through your own ignorance, or deliberately.
March 5th, 2014 at 3:24 pm
they do not use the word “confiscate” they use the word “surrender”, as in you are required to “surrender” the offending weapon
Ah. That’s completely different.
So after having read the law (and I haven’t gotten a chance to call Connecticut yet, but i will), the most your can salvage from your :”point” is the exceedingly technical difference between “confiscation” and “being required to surrender”.
You’re not hiding? OK – your response?
March 5th, 2014 at 3:26 pm
IF someone, in Connecticut or anywhere else, were taking away guns without due process, just showing up, kicking in the door, and grabbing your guns, I’d be joining you in outrage. But THAT is NOT what is happening in CT.
Not yet. Just the enactment of a legal requirement to “surrender” guns purchased legally by law-abiding people.
See Kel’s comment, above.
Please respond.
March 5th, 2014 at 3:31 pm
DG, the semantic difference between “compulsory surrender or transfer” and “confiscation” is irrelevant to the gun owner who permanently is denied access to /use of their property.
March 5th, 2014 at 3:42 pm
DG, the semantic difference between “compulsory surrender or transfer” and “confiscation” is irrelevant to the gun owner who permanently is denied access to /use of their legally-purchased property which they were legally entitled to use when they bought, and with which they have committed no crime whatsoever.
Fixed that for you.
March 5th, 2014 at 3:43 pm
mitch,
reading the text of Public Acts 13-3 and 13-220 its very clear that the laws were drafted with the notion that they a template for what they expected would be federal law.
Worth reading some night when you can’t sleep.
The required permits and paperwork necessary just to buy ammunition is particularly entertaining.
March 5th, 2014 at 3:54 pm
“The fuss over these letters is on a par with someone signing a voter card as Goofy or Lassie.”
Pfffft.
Not letters, plural; letter. The one Mitch posted. You never saw a letter any different than the one Mitch posted; you never talked to anyone at the number you googled; you’re a pathetic, pathological liar, and a particularly ignorant one at that.
Go sit by your dish until we call for more entertainment.
March 5th, 2014 at 3:58 pm
There goes Doggone again, claiming that there isn’t much voter fraud because nobody has bothered to take a good hard look. Oh, and don’t DARE look at neighboring Iowa, where an investigation has found eighty cases of prosecutable vote fraud–a significant portion of, say, Senator Church Lady’s margin of victory in 2008. One would have to guess that the total number of likely cases is much higher. But since we haven’t bothered to look into the matter, it’s not a problem, at least on DG’s planet where the sky is pink.
And then she goes and claims that letters to gun owners telling them that they must sell or donate their firearms don’t count as confiscation. Seeing that the gun owner ends up without his gun either way, something of a distinction without significance, don’cha think?
On the bright side, if you could patent cluelessness, DG could be worth billions.
March 5th, 2014 at 4:05 pm
“Voting illegally in an election is a serious problem”
You had already said voting illegally was a minor problem. “Voter registration fraud is a minor nuisance”
What you meant to say was voting illegally is a serious offense.
You are obviously too stupid to construct a coherent sentence; you consistently mangle the English language, which is not much of a surprise since your little pea brain is always wrapped tightly around a stupid conclusion to begin with.
March 5th, 2014 at 4:10 pm
swiftee, maybe she’s letting her lady parts do the writing, since as we all know from reading her blog they are above reproach.
March 5th, 2014 at 4:49 pm
Dog Gone, I’d be happy to discuss the wording of the “nag” letter you’re referring to, except I don’t have a copy to read. I really do think it’s unfair of you to hide the document, then insult people who don’t agree with your interpretation of it. I think a decent regard for honest debate requires you to show us the letter you’re talking about, so we can read it for ourselves.
Please produce the “nag” letter that was sent to gun owners.
.
March 5th, 2014 at 5:36 pm
DG – are you hiding?
On this issue, as all others – I am factual.
Is confiscation literally happening this moment? Nope. Is the groundwork being laid for it? Absolutely.
March 5th, 2014 at 8:33 pm
DG – “Voting illegally in an election is a serious problem, but one that happens with less frequency than people being hit by lightning twice.”
(Odds of being) struck more than once: 1 in 360,000,000,000 (1 in 360 billion)
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/math99/math99144.htm
Odds of voting illegally in Hennepin County:
Ultimately, the county charged 38 felons who voted before their rights were restored — less than 1/100th of 1 percent of the roughly 665,000 votes cast.
http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/176195981.html
That works out to about 1 in 17,500.
Your math is off by a factor of about 20,000,000 (20 million). The rest of your “facts” are just as suspect.
March 5th, 2014 at 9:21 pm
This non-event (“confiscation of firearms”) sounds more like a fundraising scheme.
March 5th, 2014 at 10:56 pm
Emery – if I can do my bit to help every orc gun grab effort into a benefit for Real Ameircans, I will.
March 6th, 2014 at 6:09 am
Good point, Emery, all politicians routinely exaggerate the horror and danger of the other side and ask for contributions to continue the good fight. Gun confiscation hasn’t started yet – that’s merely one possible outcome – but naturally, it’s the horror and danger our side fears so that’s what we hear about.
On the other hand, if we took Liberal politicians at their word, then gun confiscation is exactly what they eventually intend and the State Police demanding you turn in your gun is a logical first step towards it.
March 6th, 2014 at 6:21 am
Still waiting for you to produce a copy of the “nag” letter, Dog Gone. I suppose you’re wondering, at this point, what does it matter?
It matters because people of good will, considering facts in good faith, can arrive at the truth. But if the facts can’t be agreed upon, the truth can’t be reached.
You started this fight by claiming the State Police had not sent the Four Options letter, it was all a hoax and we were fools to believe they had sent it.
Now you admit a “nag” letter was sent but haven’t produced it. Fess up – there is no “nag” letter. There is only one letter – the Four Options letter- and the State Police truly did sent it. So it’s not a hoax and we were not fools to believe they had sent it.
You made a mistake of fact, Dog Gone. And upon that mistake of fact, you created a castle of lies and insults. It’s not your fault the Right hand of government didn’t know what the Left hand was doing. But until you admit you made a mistake and retract the slanders based on it, we can’t make progress toward the truth.
There is a world of difference between “Droids do not exist ” versus “They do, but these are not the droids you’re looking for.” Until you let go of the first, you can’t begin to argue the latter.
.
March 6th, 2014 at 6:56 am
DG,
Joe says: “Now you admit a “nag” letter was sent but haven’t produced it. Fess up – there is no “nag” letter. There is only one letter – the Four Options letter- and the State Police truly did sent it.”
The threat I referred to – mailed to Connecticut gun owners, that you claim doesn’t exist – and the “nag letter” you fell back to referring to, are one and the same. Aren’t they?
As Joe said, you can admit it. By admitting our mistakes, we learn.
And if you admitted all of the mistakes you’ve made on this blog – the dozens, maybe hundreds, of petty defamations you’ve made, based on trying to stretch a dime’s worth of “fact” into a dollar’s worth of rhetoric – you could potentially learn a LOT. Because you do a lot of it.
Someday when I’m bored, I may just run through your comment history and catalogue all of them.
March 6th, 2014 at 7:07 am
Your math is off by a factor of about 20,000,000 (20 million). The rest of your “facts” are just as suspect.
Given her habit of slandering (and just plain insulting) the law-abiding gun owner, it’s worth noting that you have a better chance of being hit by lightning (average >50/year in the US) than being unjustifiably shot by a legally-purchased “assault weapon” (average ~40/year).
March 6th, 2014 at 7:07 am
Reading the text of the enacting senate bills its clear that for enforcement, the intent was to be individual and selective, not collective. The primary enforcement mechanism is defined clearly in the 4 choices letter. This picks off all the low hanging fruit, so to speak, i.e. those who willingly surrender their property. The real malice of the law lay in the fact that it was designed to be a “secondary enforcement” tool.
Examples:
your child tells his friends that you have a bad weapon,
or your progressive neighbor sees you cleaning a scary weapon through the window in your family room and she’s frightened,
or you are pulled over for failure to signal a lane change,
or a spouse in a messy divorce/custody case decides to drop a dime,
etc.
Anything that can bring you in contact with authorities who if they choose to enforce the law will slap you with a class D felony and impound your weapon as evidence.
March 6th, 2014 at 7:22 am
To follow up on what Kel said:
“Confiscation” doesn’t have to mean cops going door to door in a dragnet. It can be – and is – exactly what Kel pointed out; something they use any “contact with law enforcement”, even things unrelated to guns in any way, to do.
It’s all confiscation.
March 6th, 2014 at 7:51 am
As a footnote, estimates range from 100,000 to 350,000 weapons are now illegal in CT. Seems like an enterprising sort might build a secure storage facility in Rhode Island where a citizen could secure their property from the egregious overreach of the CT legislature and make a penny or two in the process.
March 6th, 2014 at 10:41 am
So, DG – since you’re not hiding:
Got that ‘nag netter’ that’s different from the one cited above?
And would you care to comment on the distinction-without-a-difference between “confiscation” and “getting the legal framework in place to start confiscating firearms, whether in ones and twos as secondary “offenses” or, via other enabling legislation or decree, dragnet?”
March 6th, 2014 at 11:24 am
Minnesota seat belt law wasn’t a primary offense when it started, you could only get a ticket if they stopped you for something else. That was the camel’s nose under the tent. Now, of course, they can stop you solely for an alleged seat belt violation and spend the rest of the day searching you and your car for anything else the cops can think of. That’s the whole rest of the camel riding around with you.
Dog Gone is right – there have been no confiscations. Yet.
Connecticut: meet camel’s nose.
.
March 6th, 2014 at 3:23 pm
Er…DG?
(echo)
(taps mic)
(more echo)
Hmm.
March 6th, 2014 at 3:46 pm
Where’s the letter, ya illiterate cod piece? There’s White Males laughing at you. We’re calling you out honey; you’re a liar and an especially dumb one at that.
March 6th, 2014 at 5:53 pm
DG in a post at MPP & penigma readily admits (in 600* words) that yes in fact “A letter WAS sent out, to people who tried to register their assault weapons and large capacity mags”
she also bemoans “what a bunch of pathetic, gullible, lying whiners conservatives have become.”
I think that means us.
Always the cowardly blowhard she retreats to her private dunghill to broadcast her scorn.
March 6th, 2014 at 7:45 pm
Yeah, I know.
I actually thought she had the potential to be one of the better leftybloggers in town (fill in obligatory disclaimers about what a low bar that is) at one point.
It’s just disappointing.
March 6th, 2014 at 7:46 pm
And like all the leftybloggers: after one round of factoids and a couple of rounds of deflection and rhetoric, it’s back to the name-calling.
Always the name-calling.
Not that care, snug in the knowledge that, if in this way and no other, I am better than they are.
March 7th, 2014 at 7:40 am
Thanks for the update about Dog Gone’s admission, Kel. I was rather hoping for a straight-up: “I got bad information re: the letter and shouldn’t have insulted your credibility about it. But the letter the State Police did send doesn’t support your confiscation conclusions — so you’re still morons.” That, I could have lived with.
Remember Emily Litella going off on Chevy Chase about his proposal to increase violence in the schools, when he was talking about violins? At least Emily had the good grace to look uncomfortable and blurt: “Never mind.” Dog Gone isn’t even that classy. Is this what “the political is personal” has brought us to?
.
March 7th, 2014 at 9:11 am
JD,
Call me a pollyanna. Or call me overly-loyal to friends, no matter what the shelf-life (and I truly am that).
But I would call it less a matter of “class” and more a matter of “not knowing how to hold a civilized debate with someone they disagree with”, which – as I’ve written about at some length – is a problem endemic on the left. Especially in Minnesota.
Especially if you seek out a cozy spot in the echo chamber from which to hold forth.