Finally the N R A chimed in. Here's their response, that I just got notice of today via email:
NRA-ILA | Confusion Reigns as Gun Control Law Takes Effect in Connecticut; Meanwhile NRA Continues the Fight
In reading it, they "explain" why they haven't been visible. They state that the mere presence of their organization will cause a media frenzy and that people won't get a fair shake in court.
:crazy_pilot::crazy_pilot::crazy_pilot::crazy_pilot::crazy_pilot::crazy_pilot:
Right. Well how about this, Cox? Why don't you seek an emergency injunction so PEOPLE DON'T GET KILLED WHILE YOU ARE PLAYING YOUR PUBLIC RELATIONS GAMES? Can NRA risk something of their precious reputation on THAT? These Lairds of Fairfax make me want too puke. Consistently. The only thing "no-compromise" about them is their flaccidity.
Last time I saw the Oscarmobile, it had its wiener stuck into the 2nd story of a home.
When they come to confiscate your gun, give them the bullets first.
Better gun laws(?!),
Ummmm....
Oxymoron or what...
Is there such a thing as "better gun laws? Or are you just not really understanding of your own post....?
Sent from behind Enemy Lines.
Give me a break! You know what I meant to say. Just what we need...Grammar Nazi's. I fixed it......You happy now?
Give it a rest no mind...I SAID IT WAS A GRAMMAR ERROR. Get it? Now go argue and smart mouth your wife. If you even have one. If so, please give her my deepest condolences. She'll need it the way you pick the fly $h!t out of the pepper. Jesus!
.Link Removed
Link Removed
.
No idea if this is credible/true, but I would not be surprised by it if it is.
EDITOR’S NOTE: It has been pointed out that the source of this story is a satirical website. Unfortunately, the author of the site does not seem to understand satire. His stories are written like news articles and there is no way to know the site is satirical without reading the fine print. That said, it is practically a given that some of Connecticut’s cops have not properly registered their weapons, and are therefore felons. Whether it is 68% or 20% is a moot point.
.It says right at the top of the page the following:
Un-freakin'-believable! "Moot point???" It's a 100% phony story! How can anyone take any part of it seriously? Even beyond that though, how can anyone seriously assert that a 48% spread, if there were any way to substantiate it, which there ain't, but how on Earth could that wide a spread be a "moot point" under any circumstances? 20% of cops who could be shown to be on "our" side by refusing to follow unconstitutional laws is the same as 68% of the same mindset? I don't think so.
Why do people go to such irrational lengths to excuse cops who will follow CT's unconstitutional law and the orders of their superiors should those orders come down? I'm not even confident that if there were 68% of 'em that you could substantiate that a single one of 'em wouldn't leave their banned weapons/mags at home and still go out and enforce the law on lowly citizens. But a gun-rights website going to those lengths to excuse the enforcement of unconstitutional law is just over the top. We have truly walked through to the other side of the looking glass.
Oh, and this was debunked on the site already eight days ago. By me. In this very thread! Am I the only one who looks into things to find out if they're credible or not?
Blues
.
Did not realize the link went to the same site you commented on earlier. I offered no excuses on behalf of anyone. I still would not be surprised at all if a fair number of CT police officers had not complied the law, and would not be surprised if they behaved just as you describe.
Well, it certainly had the costumes and repetitive muzzle sweeping.An associate sent this to me, I'd love to hear your thoughts.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?