World News Korner

We register our cars, we register our planes, and we register our boats. But apparently being asked to register our guns is akin to being called a sex offender.

The above image is courtesy of Brancy's blog, on which there is a link to a Breitbart article that then links to an article from The Courant, a local Hartford, Connecticut paper that reported how shocked Connecticut politicians were that fun owners were resisting a new law requiring residents to register their military styled weapons:

Everyone knew there would be some gun owners flouting the law that legislators hurriedly passed last April, requiring residents to register all military-style rifles with state police by Dec. 31.

But few thought the figures would be this bad.

By the end of 2013, state police had received 47,916 applications for assault weapons certificates, Lt. Paul Vance said. An additional 2,100 that were incomplete could still come in.

That 50,000 figure could be as little as 15 percent of the rifles classified as assault weapons owned by Connecticut residents, according to estimates by people in the industry, including the Newtown-based National Shooting Sports Foundation. No one has anything close to definitive figures, but the most conservative estimates place the number of unregistered assault weapons well above 50,000, and perhaps as high as 350,000.

And that means as of Jan. 1, Connecticut has very likely created tens of thousands of newly minted criminals — perhaps 100,000 people, almost certainly at least 20,000 — who have broken no other laws. By owning unregistered guns defined as assault weapons, all of them are committing Class D felonies.

"I honestly thought from my own standpoint that the vast majority would register," said Sen. Tony Guglielmo, R-Stafford, the ranking GOP senator on the legislature's public safety committee. "If you pass laws that people have no respect for and they don't follow them, then you have a real problem."

Of course the Breibart article takes the side of the assault rifle owning scofflaws, while encouraging citizens in other states to follow suit, and by linking to it one would assume that Bristol is in full agreement that these people should not be required to let the police know that they own these weapons.

Which of course begs the question as to WHY anybody would be so fearful of allowing the government to know how many military style weapons are in their possession.

I mean we are not talking about simply owning a handgun for personal protection, which is ground zero for the NRA, nor is this even about restricting access to these high powered weapons. It is only about allowing the police to know who purchased which weapon, so that if it is used in a criminal manner they can trace it back to its source and perhaps put a bad guy behind bars.

If you are simply planning to use the weapon for target practice, or display it in your gun case so your fellow Cro-Magnon buddies know how manly you are, there should be no problem with registering the weapon just like you do your car, dog, and marriage.

The reason for that is also behind much of the NRA driven fervor to buy more and more guns. And THAT is the idea that the government is working on a plan to repeal the 2nd Amendment, and even more conspiratorial than that is the belief that Obama is, at some point, going to declare martial law, and that the only hope to fight against that is heavily armed citizens ready to fight back with unregistered weaponry.

In the old days this would have been considered the very fringe of the fringe of the conservative movement, but with the help of Sarah Palin, talk radio, and NRA Vice President Wayne LaPierre this is now considered a reasonable concern for millions of gun owners in this country.

It is insane, and the flames of that insanity are fanned by Right Wing blogs like Breitbart, Sarah Palin, and now Palin's hateful little parrot Bristol.

You know there was a time when being a conservative meant respecting, and following the law. They actively called for more laws, more law enforcement, and longer prison sentences for those who would break the law.

Today they are the ones promoting lawlessness, calling for open revolt, and nurturing distrust of the government.

What could possibly have happened to change their point of view so dramatically?

Source