Why registration? Why registration of “in common use” semi-automatic rifles? Why registration of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds? There are three reasons the gun-control crowd in Connecticut wants registration … and none of them are to prevent crime or save children.
The three reasons:
- Stigmatize gun owners. The we-want-to-control-you crowd think that because you own a firearm – especially one of those guns that look evil and hold “a bunch” of bullets – you need to be monitored and should not be trusted. There is something wrong with us. We’re irrational for the simple fact we bought a gun.
- Future confiscation. Having a list of firearms and magazines will ensure the state can come take them away – from law-abiding citizens – in the future. Trust me, that is what they want, they just can’t get there yet … their bullying tactics have yet to evolve to maturity.
- Revenue for the state. Of course, these registration schemes will cost money, and the state will gladly take money from the irrational folks. Higher fees and long wait times will result in many gun owners giving up, for the simple fact it’s too damn expensive … and the gun-control crowd loves that.
As noted, these reasons have nothing to do with preventing crime or saving children. The reasons are listed above, there are no other reasons.
There is absolutely no reason the Connecticut State Legislature must push this law through the process using an emergency certification. There is no emergency at all, rather we have a bunch of gun-control enthusiasts who want to shove these new regulations down the throats of gun owners since they have had enough of listening to the people. Those who have chosen to stand up and speak at preliminary hearings – prior to the legislation becoming official yesterday – have been against additional gun control something like 9 to 1 or more.
These are political bullies and they should be thrown out of office immediately.
I challenge the Connecticut governor or any of the gun-control faithful to tell me how registration of magazines or firearms will prevent crime or save children. I’m waiting. If you don’t want to register on our site, just send us an email and include your real name. My real name is available, and if you’re going to take the time to limit my freedom through legislative tyranny, you should at least have the guts to do it using your real name.
Yes, their goal is confiscation. Read this Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies memo from the National Institute of Justice. It’s less than 10 pages … read it. Even though people keep telling me nobody is suggesting confiscation, it’s a total lie … of course that is the end-game. Note this memo was written in January, after the Newtown shooting.
On an assault weapons ban…
Assault weapons are not a major contributor to gun crime. The existing stock of assault weapons is large, undercutting the effectiveness of bans with exemptions … Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. If coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptions then it could be effective.
In other words, without confiscation of semi-automatic firearms that are currently in common use, an assault weapons ban is not effective. And on so-called “large capacity” magazines. More confiscation is their solution…
In order to have an impact, large capacity magazine regulation needs to sharply curtail their availability to include restrictions on importation, manufacture, sale, and possession. An exemption for previously owned magazines would nearly eliminate any impact. The program would need to be coupled with an extensive buyback of existing large capacity magazines. With an exemption the impact of the restrictions would only be felt when the magazines degrade or when they no longer are compatible with guns in circulation. This would take decades to realize.
The Institute of Justice – right in the first paragraph – suggests we should be looking elsewhere to address the firearm homicide issue.
Fatalities from mass shootings (those with 4 or more victims in a particular place and time) account on average for 35 fatalities per year. Policies that address the larger firearm homicide issue will have a far greater impact even if they do not address the particular issues of mass shootings.