Connecticut-so what happens when somoene fails to register a MAGAZINE

[TurtleDude]

an item you can buy for 15 dollars across state lines. Any resident of CT can go to say Ohio and buy dozens of them. There is no registration, no waiting period, hell I just bought 10 TROY BATTLE MAGS for the M16/M4/AR15 from AIMSURPLUS.com for a total of 175 dollars (I have to pay state sales tax in Ohio) yesterday. while they won't ship stuff to states where the mags are banned, any CT resident can go to Pennsylvania and buy these things.

SO do the retards who pass this law intend to make felons out of everyone who won't register their magazines? Criminals are exempt under the fifth amendment. Should somoene who merely forgets how many mags he has and is say arrested fight back? kill those who would imprison him? seems that is what the fascists in power want.

 

[TheNextEra]

an item you can buy for 15 dollars across state lines. Any resident of CT can go to say Ohio and buy dozens of them. There is no registration, no waiting period, hell I just bought 10 TROY BATTLE MAGS for the M16/M4/AR15 from AIMSURPLUS.com for a total of 175 dollars (I have to pay state sales tax in Ohio) yesterday. while they won't ship stuff to states where the mags are banned, any CT resident can go to Pennsylvania and buy these things.

SO do the retards who pass this law intend to make felons out of everyone who won't register their magazines? Criminals are exempt under the fifth amendment. Should somoene who merely forgets how many mags he has and is say arrested fight back? kill those who would imprison him? seems that is what the fascists in power want.

It's a way to get more money to the government (even local) by fines and court costs to law-abiding citizens that get caught with this stuff.

It's funny because the way this law appears to work is the criminals who are street smart will most likely avoid getting caught while it is the law-abiding citizen who normally doesn't commit a crime will get caught and fined/jailed instead.

 

[blaxshep]

If I am printing these magazines with my 3D printer to I file ahead of time or do I register them after I print them?

 

[CalGun]

What about parts? Hi cap magazines are illegal for anyone but cops in CA but we can still buy all the parts. There are retailers nationwide who recognize the CA market "aint" bad and offer to ship us the parts in a bag (all of them). We're allowed to assemble the parts if we want but of course we are buying them to repair existing magazines :doh

 

[Wiseone]

an item you can buy for 15 dollars across state lines. Any resident of CT can go to say Ohio and buy dozens of them. There is no registration, no waiting period, hell I just bought 10 TROY BATTLE MAGS for the M16/M4/AR15 from AIMSURPLUS.com for a total of 175 dollars (I have to pay state sales tax in Ohio) yesterday. while they won't ship stuff to states where the mags are banned, any CT resident can go to Pennsylvania and buy these things.

SO do the retards who pass this law intend to make felons out of everyone who won't register their magazines? Criminals are exempt under the fifth amendment. Should somoene who merely forgets how many mags he has and is say arrested fight back? kill those who would imprison him? seems that is what the fascists in power want.

30 round magazines aren't worth killing or dying for.

 

[Pilot]

It's not like there are serial numbers. I don't know how detailed the registration is, but I'm thinking you could registerer one or two, make sure only one or two can be found at any given time, and it would be a non-issue.

 

[LaMidRighter]

30 round magazines aren't worth killing or dying for.

Liberty is ALWAYS worth killing or dying for.

 

[Wiseone]

Liberty is ALWAYS worth killing or dying for.

Are you going to die and kill for your right to have a 30 round magazine? No.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Are you going to die and kill for your right to have a 30 round magazine? No.

You obviously don't understand the situation or the principle behind it. People are getting sick and tired of government overreach, and if police push a gun owner for no other reason than supposition based on a stupid law that owner has a right to fight back. If you are willing to pass a prohibition against one's rights you'd better be ready to fight and die to enforce it, because there comes a point in any society where that can come into play.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Are you going to die and kill for your right to have a 30 round magazine? No.

For a 30 round magazine? No, for the right to have them from the types who won't simply stop at banning them?

Whats your line in the sand? Do you even have one? Banned ownership of private arms? How about door to door confiscations?

 

[Wiseone]

For a 30 round magazine? No, for the right to have them from the types who won't simply stop at banning them?

Whats your line in the sand? Do you even have one?

What's my line in the sand for when I'll start killing people to get my way? I have no idea, but I can certainly tell you its not this.

Are you going to kill someone over this law? Do you even live in Connecticut anyway?

 

[LaMidRighter]

What's my line in the sand for when I'll start killing people to get my way? I have no idea, but I can certainly tell you its not this.

Are you going to kill someone over this law? Do you even live in Connecticut anyway?

"Get your way"? You have no idea, the government is OVERREACHING, it has nothing whatsoever to do with "someone's way" but rather a government going too far by a mile. This moral relevance is garbage, it's not about "differing opinions" but rather legitimate and illigitimate.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

What's my line in the sand for when I'll start killing people to get my way? I have no idea, but I can certainly tell you its not this.

In my way? I wouldn't kill anyone who wasn't trying to kill me. I only want to be left alone to be free.

Are you going to kill someone over this law?

Of course not, I'm not James Yeager :lol:

But if the 2nd Amendment were ignored entirely, if private ownership of firearms were banned and door to door confiscation of all arms were occurring. That might be my line in the sand to resist.

Because if the state says the constitution which establishes them no longer matters and that I have no rights then they are no longer my government just men with guns at my door and I don't owe them a moment of my time. I would say no, in fact if that were happening I probably wouldn't even have my guns at my home.

I'm not saying we're anywhere near there, all I'm saying is at a certain point liberty is worth fighting for.

Do you even live in Connecticut anyway?

Nope, Maryland. Where we have no right to bear arms, we already have magazine bans and are likely facing an AWB.

 

[Wiseone]

"Get your way"? You have no idea, the government is OVERREACHING, it has nothing whatsoever to do with "someone's way" but rather a government going too far by a mile. This moral relevance is garbage, it's not about "differing opinions" but rather legitimate and illigitimate.

It is about "getting your way" you may feel your way is righteous and good and moral, but its still about getting your way.

Let me ask you the same question as a hypothetical, if a cap on magazine sizes comes to pass in Louisiana, are you going to kill someone over it?

 

[Spartacus FPV]

It is about "getting your way" you may feel your way is righteous and good and moral, but its still about getting your way.

Let me ask you the same question as a hypothetical, if a cap on magazine sizes comes to pass in Louisiana, are you going to kill someone over it?

If the magazine capacity limit is zero... but no seriously no none is talking about killing anyone over magazine capacity bans. The political process works and should be utilized.

When proposed like they are doing now, this is the time to write out leaders and voice our opposition about them; which is working and which is why an AWB or Universal Background check are dead in the water.

 

[LaMidRighter]

It is about "getting your way" you may feel your way is righteous and good and moral, but its still about getting your way.

Let me ask you the same question as a hypothetical, if a cap on magazine sizes comes to pass in Louisiana, are you going to kill someone over it?

You are a victim of moral relevance, this is what enables politicians to violate the constitution and people's liberties at will. Do you not understand that opinions differing has no bearing on legitimate and illigitimate government authority? When you say "your way" or "his way" or whatever way you desire to issue, you are saying people's opinions are equitable, that is absolutely false, if an opinion allows for prohibitions to be ignored and illigitimate laws and authority to be created then that opinion is WRONG.

 

[SMTA]

You obviously don't understand the situation or the principle behind it. People are getting sick and tired of government overreach, and if police push a gun owner for no other reason than supposition based on a stupid law that owner has a right to fight back. If you are willing to pass a prohibition against one's rights you'd better be ready to fight and die to enforce it, because there comes a point in any society where that can come into play.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety". -Benjamin Franklin, 1775.

 

[Mach]

It is about "getting your way" you may feel your way is righteous and good and moral, but its still about getting your way.

What do you think freedom is wiseone, if not getting your way? Good grief that's scary.

Let me ask you the same question as a hypothetical, if a cap on magazine sizes comes to pass in Louisiana, are you going to kill someone over it?

That's typically not the most effective recourse. Someone is unlikley to overturn government trampling on individual freedom by simply killing someone (or themselves). At best, they would likely have to devote much of their very limited lifes work to fighting it politically, with sophistry and ridiculous appeals to various interests with money to gain support, and maybe in a decade or two make some minimal difficulty for government to overreach. Possibly a fate worst than death to some.

But then, if freedom really is worth fighting for, I suppose we have to accept that eh? The firewall of the constitutional and individual rights has an expiration date apparently...

 

[Wiseone]

You are a victim of moral relevance, this is what enables politicians to violate the constitution and people's liberties at will. Do you not understand that opinions differing has no bearing on legitimate and illigitimate government authority? When you say "your way" or "his way" or whatever way you desire to issue, you are saying people's opinions are equitable, that is absolutely false, if an opinion allows for prohibitions to be ignored and illigitimate laws and authority to be created then that opinion is WRONG.

Morals are relative, I think you mean "moral relativism" not "relevance," but I didn't say all opinions are equitable and I never have. In fact I routine criticize people for their opinions when they lack facts supporting them, so therefore all opinions are not created equal and those with facts backing them are better. Anyway terms like "illegitimate and legitimate" are all relative, one only has to ask "legitimate to whom" and when the answer isn't everyone congratulations you have relativity.

You may think that your opinion is right because its legitimate, but to me that's not the case at all and if you didn't have such a high opinion of yourself you could that to me your argument lacks legitimacy.

And you didn't answer my question, say the state of Louisiana or the Federal Government bans magazines that hold over 10 rounds, are you going to kill someone over it?

 

[Lutherf]

It's not like there are serial numbers. I don't know how detailed the registration is, but I'm thinking you could registerer one or two, make sure only one or two can be found at any given time, and it would be a non-issue.

You surely know that if you register one they'll come looking for more.

 

[iguanaman]

You obviously don't understand the situation or the principle behind it. People are getting sick and tired of government overreach, and if police push a gun owner for no other reason than supposition based on a stupid law that owner has a right to fight back. If you are willing to pass a prohibition against one's rights you'd better be ready to fight and die to enforce it, because there comes a point in any society where that can come into play.

Just keep up those "2nd amendment remedies" threats. It is the best way to be sure that new gun control measures will eventually get passed. The American people don't give in to threats... they get angry. Look what happened last time Americans took up arms against our Govt. It did not end well for the losers.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Just keep up those "2nd amendment remedies" threats. It is the best was to be sure that new gun control measures will eventually get passed. The American people don't give in to threats... they get angry.

Your side isn't getting ****, accept it.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Morals are relative, I think you mean "moral relativism" not "relevance," but I didn't say all opinions are equitable and I never have. In fact I routine criticize people for their opinions when they lack facts supporting them, so therefore all opinions are not created equal and those with facts backing them are better. Anyway terms like "illegitimate and legitimate" are all relative, one only has to ask "legitimate to whom" and when the answer isn't everyone congratulations you have relativity.

You may think that your opinion is right because its legitimate, but to me that's not the case at all and if you didn't have such a high opinion of yourself you could that to me your argument lacks legitimacy.

And you didn't answer my question, say the state of Louisiana or the Federal Government bans magazines that hold over 10 rounds, are you going to kill someone over it?

More moral relativity garbage. Laws are not relative, prohititions against government are not relative, and rights are not relative, any opinions that don't recognize this are irrelevant.

 

[Wiseone]

More moral relativity garbage. Laws are not relative, prohititions against government are not relative, and rights are not relative, any opinions that don't recognize this are irrelevant.

Then how do you explain all the differences in all the morale codes of the world? Or the very fact that we have a different opinion on what morals are? Does that not mean morals are relative? You have an opinion on what is morale and you have an opinion that your opinion is infallible, but that's still just an opinion.

Anyway, are you going to kill someone or not? I thought any liberty is worth dying and killing for, do you not think that your liberties are being violated right now? Why aren't you already dead?

 

[LaMidRighter]

Then how do you explain all the differences in all the morale codes of the world?

This has nothing to do with constitutional matters in the U.S.

Or the very fact that we have a different opinion on what morals are?

While some people disagree, it does not matter to the constitution which is WHY opinions that would circumvent it are irrelevant, that is the point.

Does that not mean morals are relative?

There are certain norms in morality, but then what you are confusing is the moral differences and legal opinion, because you use the tired "your way" argument, which is meant simply to say "my legal ideas matter as much as yours", if they are not a legitimate authority, no they don't.

You have an opinion on what is morale and you have an opinion that your opinion is infallible, but that's still just an opinion.

I have an opinion of what is legal, which is backed by hundreds of years of law and the writings of those who made them. What have you got?

Anyway, are you going to kill someone or not?

If someone threatens me I will end the threat, whatever that takes. If someone threatens my liberty or my country I will end the threat, whatever that takes. Read that as you will.

I thought any liberty is worth dying and killing for, do you not think that your liberties are being violated right now? Why aren't you already dead?

I haven't been threatened with force by a government official during a time where I know they are in the wrong. Next question?