TexasCHLforum.com

Jumping Frog wrote:

VoiceofReason wrote:

gljjt wrote:Connecticut is far more likely to see confiscations. Leaked memos have allegedly indicated the governor and the head of the state police are prepared to start confiscating unregistered "assault" weapons (and "high capacity magazines") after the election, which has now passed. Apparently noncompliance to required registration is supposedly about 90% in CT.

Now, how are they going to “start confiscating unregistered "assault" weapons (and "high capacity magazines")” when they are unregistered and they do not have a list of who has them?

People keep envisioning the whole police state, house-to-house searches and confiscation, and decide it is hard to see any city, county, state, or federal body politic who would do this. Therefore the threat does not seem as apparent or present.

They do not need to confiscate these to totally destroy our right to keep and bear these arms. The current law simply makes them 100% unusable for any purpose.

So-called unregistered "assault" rifles in Connecticut right now are in the same category as someone with an unregistered NFA item, like a WWII Thompson inherited from grandpa.

They may have it sitting somewhere in their house, but it is entirely useless:

• They can never take it to the range and shoot it for fear of arrest.
• They cannot safely transport it in a vehicle for fear of arrest ("Sir, I stopped you because your license plate light is burned out . . . .").
• They cannot use it in self defense to shoot a home invader for fear of arrest.
• They cannot legally bequeath it or transfer it to their children.
• They cannot legally sell it.
• They cannot show it to a friend who is interested in guns for fear of arrest.

Why would the government bother to rile up the serfs by going door to door? They simply are playing a version of whack-a-mole. Whenever evidence of an unregistered "assault" rifle pops up, the government promptly makes a very public and scary example of that non-compliant serf. Soon the rest of the village gets the message.

AndyC wrote:

Vol Texan wrote:I hear so many liberals tell me, "Nobody wants to take your guns away," and I simply don't believe it.

Oh, it's far more than mere guns. Want to see what they have planned? Read this: http://www.varmintal.com/hci.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Vol Texan wrote:

gljjt wrote:

Beiruty wrote:Colorado comes to my mind. Anti-gun governor booted out.

Pretty sure the anti gun CO incumbent Governor won. The US Senator lost however.

"We" lost In Oregon with background checks. The result and the method (billionaire funding) is not encouraging.

Mallory won in CT. This may play out badly (confiscations) in the weeks and months ahead.

Yes it was a great night. But there were a few really bad losses.

I say "Bring It On!". I hear so many liberals tell me, "Nobody wants to take your guns away," and I simply don't believe it. If one small microcosm of our country (Colorado) chooses to demonstrate what many of us believe to be true (i.e. registration leads to confiscation), then at least it is isolated in one place - and - it proves our point. It will boost our side of the argument across the rest of the country. All those 'fence sitters' who own guns but don't want to take sides may finally wake up.